Sitting of 5 November 2001

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

  SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Ms Karen Buck be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Joan Ryan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Hill, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Magna Centre (Stirling Prize)
    Mr. Michael Clapham: If she will make a statement on the award of the Stirling prize for architecture to the Magna centre in Rotherham [10019]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote recently to Chris Wilkinson, architect on Magna, and to Stephen Feber, its
    2
    chief executive, to congratulate them on winning the Stirling prize. Transforming the redundant Templeborough steelworks into a world-class science adventure centre has been a triumph not just for the architects, but for all those involved. Visitor numbers and earnings for the first six months have exceeded targets and estimates for the first year: that goes to show how the very best buildings contribute to their communities economically, socially and environmentally. I am delighted that the Millennium Commission has helped to facilitate this wonderful project, and I congratulate the Magna team once again.
    Mr. Clapham: As my hon. Friend said, in addition to receiving the award for architecture, this is a major regeneration initiative which creates a unique opportunity for young people to engage with science. In fact, it is the first UK science centre. However, does he agree that there is a need for the centre to collaborate with local universities, such as Sheffield university, which has a high-calibre science base? That would help attract more science-based industry to south Yorkshire, supporting the information technology industry there. Furthermore, will he ensure that south Yorkshire receives its fair share of lottery moneys, so that towns, such as Barnsley, which want to regenerate their cultural capital, will have the money to do so?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the efforts now being made will address the problem that some areas have not been as fortunate as others in the distribution of moneys, and not before time. Until recent years, no country in the world could rival us in the way in which we locked up much of our intellectual capital in our universities, making it redundant. I am extremely glad that schemes are being encouraged to ensure that our universities reach out into our communities and work to tap the potential of those communities.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In congratulating those responsible for the Magna centre on their brilliant success, does the Minister agree that the Stirling prize and, indeed, other architecture awards have

    3
    helped to raise public awareness of the need for good quality architecture? Will he encourage that through the setting up of more prizes, and will he also recognise that the introduction of the national lottery has made it possible for many of those projects to leave the drawing board and become a reality? Will he do everything to encourage that trend?
    Dr. Howells: I shall do everything to encourage it as long as it does not involve additional expenditure for Department.

    Community Sport
    Tom Brake: If she will make a statement on her targets for encouraging sport in local communities. [10020]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Department is committed to raise significantly year on year the average time spent on sport and physical activities by those aged six to 16. In support of that central objective, we are investing heavily in school sports facilities that will also be available to the wider community. In delivering that programme, we will ensure that school facilities are properly managed for the community as well as for schools. I recognise the problems involved in achieving that, but I am determined that we should use those assets for the wider community, and we shall pursue that.
    I should inform the House that the announcement of a chief executive for Sport England is likely to be made later this week. I hope that the announcement will be made by Sport England. Contrary to some of the press speculation, on which I obviously cannot comment, it would be nice to bring an English missionary back from Australia.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that youth football clubs, such as Roundshaw and District Colts football club, will help the Government to achieve their targets by developing youngsters' skills and boosting their fitness and by involving the local community? Does he further agree that those targets will be much easier to reach if clubs, such as the Roundshaw and District Colts, and better-known clubs, such as Wimbledon football club, respond to the wishes of their local communities as they seek to expand?
    Mr. Caborn: I cannot comment on the specific cases that have been drawn to the House's attention, but I can say on behalf of football that, through the Football Foundation and the improved corporate governance of football, those involved are, first, seriously considering how to generate indigenous talent in the footballing world and, secondly, taking note of the facilities provided by the football academies that are being set up by a number of the premier and first division clubs. I welcome that, as well as the campaigns that have been run effectively to bring new sports facilities into the community, such as that by Donald Trelford of The Daily Telegraph for sports
    4
    playing fields. Those campaigns are to be commended, and I hope that the Government will be able to respond to them.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I understand the need to ensure that young people have access to sports facilities, but does the Minister accept that community and amateur sports clubs offer many people post-16 a lifeline and are worthwhile places in which to partake in athletics? Unfortunately, such clubs are disappearing. Most local sports clubs, such as mine, once had three or four teams, but many of them now run only one or two. Will the Minister use his energy to ensure that more is put back into community and amateur sports clubs? Specifically, has he had discussions with the Chancellor about the consultation on the tax break that I announced—sorry, suggested—in my ten-minute Bill?
    Mr. Caborn: I am sure that all the authorities will be pleased to have heard my hon. Friend's announcement on what the Chancellor will say, and I am sure that the Chancellor will be waiting to hear what my hon. Friend says.
    On the second question, the answer is, yes, the Chancellor has announced that he is seriously considering relief for sports clubs. That is a matter for the Chancellor, but I have no doubt that he will act on it in the near future. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said about sports clubs. It is important that that part of the sports infrastructure is given due attention. Although we are investing heavily in education facilities—about £750 million through the new opportunities fund—we are clearly doing so with an eye to ensuring that the wider community is involved. We want a system in which every young person—indeed everyone—has access to quality facilities and coaching, so that they can realise their potential. We are determined to put that structure in place in the medium to long term.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that all his fine words are undermined by the fact that a third of primary schools reduced the amount of time for physical education during the past year, as the Select Committee on Health has shown? When the Government allow building on playing fields, such as Foster's field in Sherborne—a policy that has been savagely criticised by the very journalist whom the Minister prayed in aid in an earlier answer—are not all the Minister's fine words completely belied by the real facts?
    Mr. Caborn: One of the first ministerial jobs that I had when the Labour Government were elected in 1997 was as Minister with responsibility for planning, and one of the figures given to me by the civil servants was that 40 playing fields a month were being closed each month when we inherited the Administration from Conservative Members, so we want no lectures from them on investment in sports facilities or playing fields. We have brought that figure down to one and a quarter a month. If they had done what should have been done when they were in power, we would not have been left in the sorry state that we are now in.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: We are looking forward to the announcement of £750 million for sport in the United Kingdom, but will that money

    5
    make provision for the employment of professional ground staff? When cuts are made in a local education budget, the first to go is either the librarian or the ground staff. We have no cricket fields or proper playing fields and, when there is a flood or it is hot, health and safety regulations deem it too dangerous for children to play. No one in the community cares about ground staff, so will my right hon. Friend reflect on that point and tell us whether it will be possible to use the money that will be made available for the employment of ground staff?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend raises an important point relating to the links between schools and the local community. We all know that, on a Saturday afternoon, it is sometimes difficult to get the school caretaker to open changing facilities so that the local football team can use the playing fields. We must consider that issue. Sport England is engaged at the regional level in dialogue with local education authorities and local authorities to ensure that facilities are available for the community as well as for schools.
    I hope that an announcement about the new opportunities fund will be made in the next few months and, when money is awarded for new facilities, one of the conditions will be that we examine the revenue side and try to ensure that the facilities are open for 24 hours a day seven days a week. I cannot guarantee that, but I will ensure that they are open to the community more than they are at present.

    BBC Charter
    Norman Baker: What criteria she intends to apply when considering renewal of the BBC charter. [10021]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will make an announcement on the criteria in due course.
    Norman Baker: In considering the criteria that will be applied, will Ministers pay particular attention to the commitment shown by the BBC to news, current affairs and serious programmes? Will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding that the BBC's obligation as our primary public service broadcaster to deliver news and current affairs is not met if those programmes are relegated to BBC Choice at 3 o'clock in the morning and that it has an obligation to ensure that they are on BBC 1 during prime time? Will he deplore the moves of BBC 1 to go down market so that it becomes some sort of tabloid channel?
    Dr. Howells: The answers to the first three questions are yes, yes and yes. On the point about dumbing down, I am deeply suspicious about politicians who tell broadcasters what they should or should not put on television. Most politicians never watch the thing.
    We must be careful about definitions of dumbing down. I am the world's greatest enemy of soaps—I hate the things—but I have inadvertently watched episodes of "EastEnders" that have dealt with serious subjects in a very adult way, so they have probably served a purpose in
    6
    that respect. I certainly would not like Whitehall officials, Members of Parliament or, still less, Ministers to tell broadcasters what they can or cannot put on television.
    Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend will doubtless have been following carefully the proceedings on the Office of Communications Bill in the other place. He will have noticed that it and many outside commentators have been pressing for as much evenhandedness as possible in the regulatory environment between all the public service broadcasters, including the BBC. Will he therefore consider the possibility, as the shape of Ofcom develops through the legislative process, that the final backstop regulatory power in respect of the BBC should rest with Ofcom rather than with the Secretary of State?
    Dr. Howells: As my right hon. Friend knows from his considerable experience, the Office of Communications Bill is about setting up Ofcom. It is certainly not about content, which will ultimately be decided by the communications Bill that we hope to publish in draft form in the new year. I am sure that, at that point, there will be adequate time and opportunity for debate on these sensitive subjects.

    Tourism (Terrorist Attacks)
    4. Mr. Mark Francois: If she will make a statement on the effects of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on the promotion of tourism to the UK. [10022]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): Transatlantic tourism has been badly hit as a result of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Airlines are reporting ticket sales down by between 20 and 30 per cent. on some key transatlantic routes. The impact on the British tourism market is severe, because transatlantic tourists typically spend £6 for every £1 spent by a domestic tourist. The fall in income could reach £2.5 billion this year, but a survey from the British Tourist Authority suggests that there will be a recovery in the second half of next year.
    I have visited New York three times since 11 September and have been in close contact with the BTA, its staff and agents of the American tourism industry. I should like to take this opportunity—I hope that the House will join me—to pay tribute to the BTA's staff who are based in New York. They showed courage and commitment in the days following the attack, helping stranded tourists to get home.
    Mr. Francois: Is the Secretary of State aware that the BTA has estimated a fall in overseas visitor numbers of up to 25 per cent. for the final quarter of this year? Given the pressure that the industry was already under as an after-effect of the foot and mouth crisis, what practical steps are Ministers taking—other than earning air miles—to alleviate the industry's problems?
    Tessa Jowell: The tourism industry was hit hard in a multitude of ways by the terrorist attack on 11 September. As the August figures showed a recovery on the previous year as a result of the additional investment in marketing that the Government provided to the BTA, terrorism

    7
    struck when things were getting better for transatlantic tourism. However, the BTA and all the tourism agencies have worked closely with the Government and are investing £5 million in marketing Britain to destinations in Europe and beyond to attract visitors who want to enjoy the fantastic opportunities that Britain offers.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: May I remind my right hon. Friend of one of our more successful tourist venues, the Aldeburgh festival, which took place at the weekend? It is one of our major literary festivals and I am delighted to say that it was absolutely packed out. Will she congratulate all those involved in its organisation, including Michael Laskey and Naomi Jaffa, on producing such a successful event?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to give my wholehearted congratulations to all those involved in the Aldeburgh festival.
    David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no historical analogy with the last great disaster in tourism to affect the United Kingdom, which happened after the American bombing of Libya and events in Chernobyl? The recovery then was led by the airline industry. Does she also agree that £5 million expenditure is peanuts? If she does not authorise a massive increase in spending through the devolved Assemblies, her Department and the tourism authorities, the industry will not recover to benefit the UK.
    Tessa Jowell: Having had the opportunity in New York to talk to the BTA and American tourism bodies, it is clear that marketing travel to Americans at the moment will not get New Yorkers who do not want to leave home and are afraid of flying on to planes. That is why the BTA' s strategy of marketing Britain to other countries that are part of the major market for inbound tourism is right. It welcomed the opportunity to reallocate resources, and I hope that that, coupled with its commitment, will be borne out by an increase in the number of visitors to Britain.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend recall in her discussions with the BTA mention of one of its most successful publications linking film production to tourism? Given the increase in tourism at Alnwick castle after "Elizabeth" and in Sheffield after "The Full Monty", and given the success of the Harry Potter film, will she link both industries in the interests of both?
    Tessa Jowell: I understand that the BTA has been involved in the development of a promotional film making precisely the link to which my right hon. Friend refers. We have also used football to promote British tourism in addition to the normal attractions of culture and heritage. So, the BTA is looking imaginatively at ways of marketing Britain, and I hope that that will be rewarded with the success that it deserves.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: My husband works for an American airline company, so the House will appreciate that I am only too aware of the effects on the promotion of English tourism caused by the tragedies on 11 September.
    8
    Does the Secretary of State accept that tourism numbers were already down before 11 September, in part due to the on-going foot and mouth crisis? The Government like league tables, and I have here one which may interest the Secretary of State. It shows bed occupancy levels in the English regions. She may not be aware that, in July, Yorkshire dropped to 10th in the regional table for bed occupancy, largely due to the on-going foot and mouth crisis. I hear what she says about the role of the BTA, but does she agree that there is an argument for the English Tourism Council being given a clear marketing role to promote tourism in the English regions?
    Tessa Jowell: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities on the Front Bench.
    The hon. Lady will be well aware that the figures were down as a result of foot and mouth, but as I said in response to an earlier question, they were recovering, especially in transatlantic travel. Domestically, the picture is patchy. It is clear—in the work that we have been doing with leaders of the tourism industry, there is widespread recognition of this—that although tourism was badly hit by foot and mouth and then by the events of 11 September, the industry also faces issues such as variable quality and standards and value for money. We are working closely with the industry to do everything possible to ensure that it emerges stronger from those two crises than it was before foot and mouth first hit.

    Millennium Stadium
    Paul Flynn: What proposals she has to encourage the use of the Millennium stadium for major UK events. [10023]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) should withdraw the remark about air miles made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That statement was quite disgraceful.
    The millennium stadium in Cardiff is an outstanding sporting arena and a fitting home for Welsh rugby union and football. Decisions about the events that are held there lie with the stadium operators and event-holders. Given the popularity of the stadium among fans and event-holders alike, there is no need for anyone, least of all the Government, to become involved in attracting events to it.
    Paul Flynn: I am grateful for that reply, but following the great success of events held in the millennium stadium, should not it now be regarded as the natural home of international and national events for England and Wales and as the premier stadium in the British Isles? When my right hon. Friend searches for an alternative to Wembley and Picketts Lock, will he examine the claims of Birmingham, Coventry and every other town in the midlands and in the rest of the United Kingdom? I hope that the process will not be rushed. It should be measured and leisurely because the millennium stable[Interruption] —the millennium stadium will be available for decades to come to host such events.
    Mr. Caborn: I have heard of a multi-purpose stadium, but never one that was a stable as well. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that we have asked the International Amateur Athletics Federation to consider Sheffield for an

    9
    international athletics stadium. I have been taking advice on some of the activities at Cardiff and my hon. Friend—who, as everyone knows, is an expert on rugby union—tells me that if the Welsh team aspired to the performance that the stadium demands, Wales could be even more successful than it is now.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister believe that Britain needs a national stadium, and, if so, where should it be?
    Mr. Caborn: That decision will be made by the Football Association and it is with the FA now. Let me update the hon. Gentleman. I think that he knows that just before the election the FA, which had already received £120 million of lottery money, asked for another £300 million of lottery money. We brought in Patrick Carter to carry out a review; he has been responsible for the Commonwealth games financing, which he reviewed for us, and for Picketts Lock. He has done as we asked and discussions on the Carter review with the FA and Sport England are continuing. I repeat, it is an FA project and the FA takes the lead. The FA and Sport England are currently discussing Patrick Carter's report.
    Mr. Yeo: The House will know that although Patrick Carter's report has been paid for by the public, it has not yet been seen by the public: it remains a secret document. Is it not now clear that the Picketts Lock fiasco has so damaged Britain's reputation that any chance we had of hosting either the Olympic games or the world cup has gone for the foreseeable future? Despite squandering millions of pounds of public money, the Government's incompetence and their failure to honour undertakings given by Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards will deny British fans the chance to see the world's top athletes perform on British soil. Does the Minister agree that the last-ditch attempt to replace London with his home city as the venue for the world athletics championships was merely a shabby attempt to conceal the damage that the Government have done to our reputation in sporting circles?
    Mr. Caborn: I remind the House that the issue of Wembley stadium started in 1996 under the Conservative Administration, and it was not resolved under that Administration. As for Picketts Lock, as soon as Sheffield became a potential contender, under the ministerial code I was removed from any decision making. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not implying that I was involved in that decision. Furthermore, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's comments, Patrick Carter's report was put into the public domain at 5 o'clock on the Thursday that the decision was made. Everyone has been able to read it and arrive at their own judgment, and a considerable number of people have told my Department that the right decision was made. It is not in the interests of British sport or the British sports industry for the hon. Gentleman to continue to talk down our very good facilities. Our country probably runs more international sporting events than any other European country.

    Digital Television
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What plans she has to ensure equality of access to digital television. [10024]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): In the White paper "A New Future for Communications", the Government have set out tests that must be met before the analogue signal is fully switched to digital. Those conditions will ensure that everyone who currently receives analogue television will have access to digital television. To facilitate the switch to digital, the Government have just published a draft digital action plan.
    Mr. Bryant: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are deeply resentful of the fact that they get S4C instead of, rather than as well as, Channel 4? They would dearly love to see many of the free to air digital channels that are now available, but partly because they are not aware of the free to air option and partly because they are fearful of taking on extra financial burdens, they are not able to get them. Is it not time that we introduced a strategy to ensure that every household has a digital tuner? Toward that end, will the Government consider giving free, free to air digital tuners to every pensioner and every household that receives a free television licence?
    Dr. Howells: I take my hon. Friend's point because, of course, I live just down the road from him and have never been able to get Channel 4—good though S4C is, I might add as Minister with responsibility for broadcasting. We will ensure that everyone who can currently get the main public service channels can receive them in digital form. The switch to digital has to be an affordable option, which is the point that my hon. Friend made. I know that there are a great many people in his constituency of the Rhondda who cannot afford expensive digital equipment. As a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers have access to digital equipment.
    There are parts of the country to which, because of their topography, it will be difficult to get terrestrial digital—the Rhondda is certainly one of them. We have 230 analogue relays in Wales. They are expensive pieces of equipment to replace, but we have to look urgently at how we ensure that everyone who lives in Wales has the opportunity to receive, one way or another, a digital signal.
    Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State recently gave a welcome green light to new BBC digital stations. However, is the Minister uncomfortable with the fact that, while the entire British public are paying for them through the licence fee, only between one quarter and one third will actually be able to receive them? Does he believe that the time scale of 2006–2010 is still realistic for the digital switchover, particularly given ITV Digital's current commercial difficulties?
    As the Government stand to make considerable proceeds from selling off the analogue spectrum after switch-off, will they consider using some of that money in advance to sponsor the further spread of digital television? Can they put pressure on retailers to promote the free to air option with the same vigour with which they promote the subscription option? In topographically difficult areas, will they use public money to ensure that areas, not only in Wales but in Lynton, Lynmouth and other deep valleys, get digital television because many of them are not getting analogue pictures at the moment?
    Dr. Howells: There were a few questions there. We will certainly continue to press the regulatory authorities to ensure that, where possible, we can turn up the juice on transmitters so that we get better quality pictures and a much wider footprint. I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later. I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to press on with that timetable. I am as determined now as ever to ensure that the switchover will take place between 2006 and 2010. We have to be a good deal more imaginative and assertive than we have been to ensure that existing broadcasters do much more to publicise the virtues of digital technology.
    Miss Anne Begg: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the collapse just a few weeks ago of the telecommunications company Atlantic Telecom, which delivered cable television to a number of my constituents after taking over Aberdeen Cable Services. My constituents therefore arrived home from work one night to discover that they had no television at all, just a message that their service had been withdrawn.
    There is a wider issue. The digital service, including free to view channels, is often provided through platforms for which people pay, whether satellite, Sky or ITV Digital, so there is a danger that consumers may lose access to television for which they have paid. At present, there seems to be no protection in legislation. When the communications Bill is introduced, will my hon. Friend make sure that it provides that kind of protection for the consumer?
    Dr. Howells: It is important that there is adequate regulation to ensure that that kind of protection is offered. However, I do not think that we need heavy-handed regulation to do that; it ought to be much simpler. That is the purpose of the White Paper and the new communications Bill, which, hopefully, will be published in the new year. We need light-touch regulation, which should be clear and transparent to ensure that both the industry and the consumer get a good, consistent service and do not receive unpleasant surprises.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The Minister will recall the all-party support for the very effective campaign by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People for subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing on cable and satellite TV. Before the general election, the Government gave a clear commitment and a promise to introduce that. Nothing has been heard since then. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that that promise still stands, and give us an idea of when that admirable and much desired change will come into effect?
    Dr. Howells: I can certainly repeat that promise. I am meeting various RNID officials. There are some difficult problems, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows—problems with the technology, the take-up and the affordability. I want the initiative to be taken forward as quickly as possible. No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that we have tried to raise the threshold generally to help people with disabilities, especially blind people, to overcome those problems when they watch television or listen to the radio. It is important that we take that agenda forward.

    Commonwealth Games
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: What discussions she has held on arrangements for the security of the Commonwealth games in Manchester. [10025]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Security arrangements for the Commonwealth games are being reviewed, following the events of 11 September. They will be kept under constant review between now and the games. Greater Manchester police are in daily contact with the Commonwealth games organisers, the relevant local authorities, other emergency services and all other relevant parties in respect of security planning for next year's games. Greater Manchester police are confident that all planning is on track and will deliver a safe games for athletes, spectators, VIPs and the residents of the Greater Manchester area.
    Mr. Hendrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it is important for the games to go ahead, if possible, without terrorist incident—first, because of the obvious economic benefits to Greater Manchester and Lancashire, and secondly, to show the world that the UK, and Britain in particular, is capable of hosting a major world sporting event that requires new stadiums?
    Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that that will happen. We will produce a Commonwealth games of which not only Manchester and the north-west, but the UK and the Commonwealth will be proud. I pay tribute to Charles Allen and Francis Done, the chairman and chief executive of Manchester 2002, and their team for the tremendous work that they are doing. Now that they have a robust financial structure, which was put into place on the recommendation of Patrick Carter, we can deal more effectively with issues such as 11 September. As we now have more credibility, more sponsors are coming forward. That shows that the plan undertaken by Patrick Carter and the work done by him are paying dividends in many ways.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Minister accept that since 11 September the cost of policing the Commonwealth games will be higher than it would have been before, and is likely to be more than £8 million out of the budget of Greater Manchester police? Will he undertake to make representations to the Home Office and his colleagues there to ensure that the people of Greater Manchester do not bear the burden of the cost of that policing? Will he ensure that the Home Office takes on the whole of that cost, to ensure that my constituents and others across Greater Manchester do not suffer from a diminution of police resources?
    Mr. Caborn: No request has been received by the Department. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into detail about security planning for the Commonwealth games, but from the contingency fund of £25 million that we put into the finances, we have been able to cater adequately for what the police believe would be the worst-case scenario. As regards the knock-on effect

    13
    on the revenue spend of Greater Manchester police, I have no doubt that if representations were made to the Home Office, they would receive serious consideration.
    Paul Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reassurance. In Manchester five years ago, we learned something of the devastation that terrorism brings when an IRA bomb exploded at the heart of our city. Although it is important to take every precaution, will my right hon. Friend join me in emphasising that next summer in Manchester there will be a warm welcome for thousands of competitors and spectators from across the world, and an opportunity for them to enjoy the competition and the friendship that these important Commonwealth games will bring?
    Mr. Caborn: I hope that that sentiment will be echoed on both sides of the House and in the national press, because it is certainly recognised in the north-west. There has been a tremendous take-up of tickets that are available now, and a lottery for that area will start in the next few days. Some 12,000 people have already volunteered, and people are volunteering at the rate of 200 a week. There is a real appetite for the games' success and I have no doubt that Manchester and the north-west will ensure that, contrary to what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the shadow spokesman, said—[Interruption.] I am having difficulty in getting his attention. He has just been critical of facilities in the UK and has run down the UK. Now, he cannot even listen and support Manchester in hosting one of the best international events to take place in 2002. His performance at the Dispatch Box is quite disgraceful.

    Museums and Galleries Taskforce
    Shona McIsaac: What her response is to the findings of the regional museums and galleries taskforce. [10027]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I welcome the publication of the report of the regional museums taskforce, which contains a convincing analysis of the problems and opportunities of museums and galleries in the regions. I have asked Lord Evans of Temple Guiting for advice, by the end of the year, on ways in which Resource should begin to implement the report's recommendations on the basis of funds already allocated to it for supporting regional activities.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has it been brought to her attention that the award-winning national fishing heritage centre in Grimsby closed its doors last week for six months because of funding difficulties? I heard the glimmers of hope that she gave in her reply, but that excellent regional museum needs help sooner rather than later.
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is important to recognise that 2,000 museums and galleries throughout the country are funded in large part by local authorities and in much smaller part by my Department. Lord Evans's report proposes a new relationship between regional centres of excellence and smaller, satellite museums in order to improve their
    14
    contribution to education, access and social inclusion. I am sure that she will take those messages to her local museum in Cleethorpes.
    Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State consider museums that although are not in the national top 12, for which her Department has done a much appreciated deal allowing them some support in return for free admission, are none the less national museums in the first or second division rather than the premiership? In the borough for which she and I share responsibility there is the Design museum, which is unique in the United Kingdom. Is she willing to accept representations on ways in which that tier of national museum could be assisted if it, too, were willing to take the same approach to admission fees?
    Tessa Jowell: I recognise the contribution that the Design museum makes to the life not just of Southwark but of London as a whole. However, I would not want to mislead the House by pretending that we are in a position to provide the necessary support to all museums and galleries to enable free entry, as is the case with those that my Department supports directly. At the beginning of next month, we shall see the completion of the programme that was introduced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I hope that Members on both sides of the House will continue to make representations about the case for improving access to less recognised museums, which are often the focus of local communities and represent their own kind of excellence.
    Jim Dobbin: The Commonwealth games will be an important event for my constituency in Greater Manchester. Will the Minister encourage Commonwealth countries to maximise their participation by reassuring them of the safety aspects of the games?
    Tessa Jowell: Yes, we—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was not about the Commonwealth games but about museums, so the Minister need not answer.

    Gambling Review
    John Barrett: What assessment the Government have made of recommendation 70 of the report of the gambling review body on not-for-profit clubs. [10028]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): We have received more than 1,500 representations about the recommendation that jackpot gaming machines should not be allowed in such clubs. We have not yet reached conclusions on this or the other recommendations in the report. However, we shall consider very sympathetically the strong points made to us that recommendation 70 would have a damaging impact on many clubs and the communities they serve.
    John Barrett: Does the Minister agree that the way to tackle the concerns about children having access to gaming machines is not in the way proposed, because a number of clubs have membership that is exclusively for the over-18s or can make other provisions?
    Mr. Caborn: We have to be very careful about such judgments. As I said, I have received more than 1,500 representations from Conservative, Liberal and Labour clubs, as well as from the CIU, Miners Welfare and the Royal British Legion. Many of them cater for families, which we must acknowledge and welcome, however, we must ensure that we take the Budd report's concerns on board and also ensure that children do not have access to jackpot machines. If the Government are clear about that central question, the report's major concern will be answered. Although we have not made a decision, we are mindful that almost £250 million goes into the clubs' financial infrastructure, and to withdraw that would have serious repercussions across many communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. David Rendel: What resources the Commission has made available to the National Audit Office for the audit of spending by the European Commission in the last 12 months. [10063]
    Mr. Alan Williams (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): As the Comptroller and Auditor General does not audit the European Commission's operations, under the treaties establishing the European Community, responsibility for the external audit of the European Community revenue and expenditure, including that of the Commission, rests with the European Court of Auditors. However, the CAG audits the expenditure of the money that the United Kingdom receives from the European Community budget that is spent by UK Departments and agencies. The CAG's estimate provides for the resources to discharge its responsibility.
    Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Will he comment on the way in which the appointment of the British member of the European Court of Auditors is carried out? Does he believe that such a person should have considerable experience of audit, probably being a fully trained auditor? Does he also believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have a greater say in that appointment?
    Mr. Williams: The situation seems to be very in-house, to put it mildly. It is a closed shop for ex-civil servants. There have been three appointments since 1977 and everyone appointed has been an ex-civil servant. The individual who is due—no doubt quite justifiably—to take the fourth appointment next December is also an ex-civil servant.
    16
    It concerns me that there is no formal arrangement or facility for the CAG even to he consulted. The nature of the job is such that it has a near-sinecure status. Once appointed, the individual can be dismissed only by the European Court of Justice, and even then, only at the invitation or request of the Court of Auditors.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Ecclesiastical Stipends
    Paul Flynn: What the changes in real terms have been in stipends and other salary payments paid to (a) bishops, (b) parish priests and (c) archbishops since 1986. [100541
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Between 1986 and 2001, stipends for diocesan bishops, parish priests of incumbent status and the two archbishops have increased on average by 110 per cent., 119 per cent. and 106 per cent. respectively. I am happy to say that parish priests have come off best.
    Paul Flynn: That is reassuring news. The definition of a stipend in the Church is that it should allow the priest to live without financial difficulty and be able to maintain his family in a state that cannot be described as poverty or riches. However, the majority of the clergy—75 per cent.—make no investment in a home of their own, which causes difficulties in retirement, and a quarter of them have made applications to charities in the past year. Does that not suggest that the parish priest is a long way from a state of riches but dangerously close to a state of poverty?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that particular point.
    The central stipends authority of the Archbishops Council is looking carefully at clergy stipends. Its criteria are that the stipends should be adequate for clergy to discharge their duties without undue financial anxiety, that there should be flexibility to allow the Church to pay its clergy where they can best be deployed, and that there should be equity, with stipend levels being broadly convergent and not constituting an impediment to clergy mobility.
    My hon. Friend's points will be taken into account carefully in all consultations.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a considerable proportion of the commissioners expenditure goes towards clergy stipends and pensions? If they are to be encouraged to do more, is it not essential for them to receive the maximum return on their assets—within, of course, the code of ethics to which they subscribe?
    Mr. Bell: The commissioners must indeed obtain the best possible return on their assets, because one of their responsibilities is to meet the stipends of their clergy. A great deal of time and effort is being put into clergy

    17
    stipends. A document entitled "Generosity and Sacrifice", which is in the Library, lists a number of benchmarks for clergy to observe in future, and is well worth a read.

    Clergy Poverty
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What plans the commissioners have for dealing with poverty among the clergy. [10055]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The review group on stipends, to which I just referred, has expressed a number of aspirations, one of which is to introduce an incumbent's stipend guideline equivalent—with housing included—amounting to approximately 80 per cent. of the starting salary of a head teacher of a large primary school.
    Mr. Bryant: Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the Church of England's own report "Generosity and Sacrifice", more than one in 10 clergy say that they struggle to pay bills every year and, indeed, regularly go into debt? As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, many fail to acquire enough money to buy a home to which to retire. Is it not time that, first, Church of England clergy had proper employment rights, and secondly, that the tied cottage concept was abolished?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for widening the issue to encompass employment rights and the tied cottage. As he may know, in addition to their stipends based on a national stipends benchmark of £16,910 from April 2001, clergy of incumbent status receive free accommodation or a housing allowance, and membership of a non-contributory pension scheme. Moreover, their working expenses should be fully reimbursed. I nevertheless congratulate my hon. Friend on having already read "Generosity and Sacrifice".
    Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Church Commissioners are responsible for dealing with the poverty of clergy, but does he accept that, as a landlord, they are also responsible for dealing with that of their tenants? Will he convey to them the anger, frustration and dissatisfaction caused by the September decision of their assets committee, as a result of which there is less housing for the poor in London? Is that not compatible with a doctrine that states, "We will look after our own if they are clergy, but not if they are tenants"?
    Mr. Bell: I expected the hon. Gentleman to widen the question to cover the Octavia estates. I can tell him, however, that the commissioners paid £90.60 million for clergy pensions and a further £11.7 million to offset the cost of contributions payable under the new pension scheme. The Octavia Hill issue is another question for another day, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is part of the Church Commissioners overall responsibility to obtain the best possible return on investments in order to put more money into the cure of souls.

    Flooding
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps are being taken to ensure the safety of church records and artefacts in those buildings that are susceptible to flooding. [10056]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Church builders have always been conscious of the need to build in places that do not flood. Church records and artefacts are generally, although regrettably not always, at relatively low risk.
    Mr. Prentice: Is that not a complacent reply? We all remember, one year ago, photographs of the Archbishop of York paddling about the cellars of his palace in York in his wellies. Is there not a case for the Government to examine the issue further and perhaps to give the Church of England emergency funding to ensure that our national treasures, such as the bishop's palace in York, are not susceptible to flooding? I do not want to see the palace in York flooded in a few weeks time; that would be just too embarrassing.
    Mr. Bell: Whether the Government should help the minster at York is, of course, a matter for the Government and not for the Second Church Estates Commissioner. However, the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 places on individual parishes a duty to ensure that registers and records are not kept in places where there is at least a risk of damage from flooding.

    Bishops' Work Load
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the progress of the commissioners deliberations on alleviating the work load of bishops. [10058]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): A review group has given the view that, on the evidence presented to it, bishops are very hard working, perhaps excessively so; that the pressures on them are increasing; and that they do not have lavish lifestyles. How the hard work and pressure can be alleviated is the subject of on-going consultations.
    Michael Fabricant: Those on-going consultations were on-going when I raised this issue before the previous general election. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was some discussion by the commissioners of the appointment of a third archbishop. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a precedent in Lichfield where, in the seventh century, there was a third archbishop? May I say that if there is going to be a third archbishop, he should be in Lichfield? May I also say that, contrary to the ideas of certain sketchwriters, I am not offering myself for that position?
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman might well be aware of the phrase that he who goes in a pope comes out a cardinal. Should there be a third archbishop, the same might be said for the bishop of Lichfield.

Railtrack
3.32 pm
Mrs. Theresa May(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the process of consultation and decision taking that led to Railtrack being put into administration.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): On 2 April 2001, Railtrack asked the Government for help because of its pressing financial difficulties. The Government brought forward £1.5 billion of investment from the period beyond 2006 to the five-year period starting on 1 April 2001. The first instalment of that deal was paid on 1 October 2001 in full—£337 million.
At the time of the April agreement, the Government felt that we should make it clear that our role was to support the railway network but that we should not be seen as acting as guarantor of individual companies or their shareholders. We therefore agreed with Railtrack a statement of principles. The first point in the statement states:
"The Government stands behind the rail system but not individual rail companies and their shareholders who need to be fully aware of the projected liabilities of the companies in which they invest and the performance risks they face".
In May, June and July, Railtrack's position worsened dramatically. On 25 July, at a meeting in my office, the chairman said that the position was far worse than had been thought in April, and that it was clear that, unless extra financial assistance from the Government was provided, on 8 November, when Railtrack was due to give its interim results, it would be unable to make the critical statement that it was "a going concern." The effect of that would have been disastrous. Immediately I ordered intensive discussions with Railtrack.
In August, Railtrack's advisers came back to the Department and said simply that there were three options available; restructuring, renationalisation or, as they described it, receivership. Thus it was Railtrack's advisers who first raised the possibility of insolvency if no additional funding was made available by the Government. I immediately asked my officials to investigate the restructuring option, which involved the provision of more funding to Railtrack. Railtrack asked for funding from the Government to cover all its costs, plus a profit and a four-year suspension of regulation. Those were Railtrack's proposals.
Given the company's demands, we began to prepare for the possibility that we might be unable to provide additional funding and that, as a consequence, Railtrack would be insolvent. As I told the House on 15 October, in order to protect passengers' interests, it was clearly right to explore the need for railway administration on a contingency basis.
As part of this contingency planning, draft railway administration orders were drawn up. A draft of the rules was printed by The Stationery Office on 28 September. The rules were made when a copy of that document was signed by me on 6 October to indicate that I concurred in the making of the rules. They came into force on 7 October.
20
The allegedly leaked rules, as some have described them, were produced to the court as evidence on 7 October and laid before Parliament on 8 October. They formed part of the bundle of documents placed before the court and have been deposited in the Library of the House.
As regards the printing of the draft rules on 28 September, I have already made it clear to the House that since Railtrack plc's view was that administration was the likely outcome if the Government refused to provide further funding, I had to consider, on a contingency basis, how, if Railtrack plc were proved to be insolvent, I could ensure an orderly process resulting from administration without disruption of the railways. The drafting of the rules was finalised as part of this contingency exercise and a print of them was obtained from The Stationery Office, in case they should be needed. The order runs to some 71 pages. It could not be drawn up overnight once a decision had been taken. It had to be prepared on a contingency basis.
As I reported to the House on 15 October, we carried on discussions with Railtrack until 3 October, but there was no way out of the dilemma: either we gave a guarantee on money, or the company became insolvent. So, on Friday 5 October, I reviewed all the relevant papers and considered all the options, including Railtrack's proposed rescue package, and I decided that no further Government funding should be made available to Railtrack. I decided that we could no longer give Railtrack a blank cheque.
I informed John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, immediately of my decision, and of my decision to petition the High Court for a railway administration order if the company were insolvent. The order was granted on 7 October. Railtrack was taken into administration because it was, or was likely to become, unable to pay its debts. Our petition to the High Court showed that there would be a deficit of £700 million by 8 December this year, rising to £1.7 billion by the end of March next year.
Railtrack was a creation of the Conservative party. Clearly, the Conservative party cannot come to terms with the fact that a failed Tory privatisation has been brought to an end by this Government. Railtrack represents much that was wrong with the Tory privatisation of the railways, with the travelling public seen as an inconvenience, getting in the way of the interests of shareholders. The time has come to put delivery to passengers before dividends to shareholders. That is what the Government have done.
Mrs. May: Although I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response, we had heard most of it before. He has signally failed to answer adequately many questions that remain in the minds of passengers, staff and shareholders about the Government's handling of winding up Railtrack.
On 15 October, the Secretary of State made a statement in which he claimed that he had decided to put Railtrack into administration on Friday 5 October. Since then, as he has just confirmed, it has become clear that the relevant statutory instrument had been prepared in September and was published on 28 September—at least a week before the Secretary of State claims he made his decision.
There is a wealth of difference between assessing the implications of a decision, ascertaining what is necessary to make it and implementing it by using parliamentary

21
draftsmen and others. The information calls into question the timing of the Secretary of State's decision to wind up Railtrack and the validity of his statement to the House on 15 October. It suggests that staff and shareholders were misled.
Sadly, when the Secretary of State had already decided to wind up Railtrack, thousands of its employees were investing more of their hard-earned savings in the company. For the Government to allow people to invest their annual dividend while they signed away the railways' future is at least morally questionable. It is now open to legal challenge, and staff and passengers face months of uncertainty.
The Secretary of State prays in aid the statement of principles that was agreed between the Government and Railtrack. I suggest that he considers the third principle, which makes it clear that the Government agreed that
"The company…needs to receive sufficient Government funding, as determined by the Regulator."
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government threatened the regulator with legislation if he used his powers to intervene in Railtrack?
There are other signs that the Government's decision was taken before 5 October. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangement for the chairman of Railtrack to attend a meeting with him at 4.45 pm on Friday 5 October was made on the afternoon of the previous day. Thursday 4 October, and that Railtrack was told that the time of the meeting could not be changed and had to be after the market had closed? Does he agree that that means that Lord Falconer was wrong in his statement in another place on 31 October that
"during the course of the afternoon the Secretary of State reviewed the papers, made up his mind and called immediately for the chairman of the board of the company"—[Official Report, House of Lords. 31 October 2001; Vol. 627. c. 1486.]?

In the light of the fact that the Secretary of State's private office had arranged the meeting on the previous day, will he reconsider his statement of a few minutes ago that the chairman of the board was called in immediately after he had reviewed the papers on 5 October? If he did not know on 4 October that he was going to put Railtrack into administration, why was the meeting called and why was its timing so critical?
The Secretary of State has admitted that administrators were first approached on 23 August. Will he publish the instructions that they were given then, and any changes to them that the Department subsequently made? When he decided that Railtrack was insolvent, did he take any account of the value of the stations that the company owns? Will he confirm that he was not able to proceed with winding up Railtrack without the authority of the Treasury and other Cabinet colleagues? When did he receive that authority? When was the Prime Minister's office made aware of his intention to put Railtrack into administration?
Will the Secretary of State confirm once and for all when he decided in principle to put Railtrack into administration? All the evidence suggests that the Secretary of State had decided to wind up Railtrack before the decision was announced to the company and the markets, and that the decision of 5 October related to the timing of the announcement and not to whether the company should be wound up.
22
We are not simply considering the Secretary of State's job but the credibility of the Government. Will the Secretary of State lay all anxieties to rest by agreeing to an independent public inquiry into the Government's handling of Railtrack?
As the pieces of the jigsaw come together, it appears that, far from the decision being made on the afternoon of 5 October, it was a drawn-out act of wilful destruction by the Secretary of State. It is clear that he has been bent on destroying Railtrack from the start. As a result, schemes will be delayed, investment postponed and the industry placed in a protracted period of stagnation. There is a huge obstacle in the way of future investment in the railways. That obstacle is the Secretary of State. He must go.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised several specific questions and I am more than pleased to answer them, because it is right that the House should be made aware of the facts and not allegations that have no substance. The first relates to the railway administration order. That document is 71 pages long and could hardly be drawn up overnight.
As I said to the House on 15 October, in order to protect passengers' interests, it was clearly right to explore the need for railway administration on a contingency basis. That was part of sensible contingency planning. That is the reality and it is as simple as that. There is no way that a railway administration order running to 71 pages could have been produced after I had had the conversation with Mr. Robinson on the afternoon of 5 October. It was therefore prepared on a contingency basis—as I said to the House on 15 October, before that issue was raised—in case railway administration was necessary.
The second issue relates to the chairman of Railtrack being invited to a meeting in my office on the afternoon of 5 October, after the markets had closed. The hon. Lady should be aware from my statement on 15 October that the Government were considering two clear issues. One was whether to go for railway administration and the other was whether to agree to the request from Railtrack for further Government funding. I said to the House on 15 October that I took the decision—just after midday, I think it was—on 5 October that we could not afford any further Government money to bail out Railtrack. Had I made the other decision—to provide additional Government funding for Railtrack—my advice was that it would also have been market-sensitive information. Whatever decision I took had to be communicated to Railtrack when the markets had closed, whichever the option was. The meeting was set up for 4.45 pm on the Friday, because whatever decision I took—and we did not know when it was arranged—would have been market-sensitive and had to be communicated.
In relation to the involvement of the Treasury and the Prime Minister, the decision was taken in the normal way. It was a Government decision which I took on behalf of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It was taken on Friday 5 October. That is the 20th time I have told the House that and it is the truth of the situation.
In relation to the value of stations, those issues were considered by the High Court judge when he decided whether to agree to the petition. He agreed, because he realised the difficult situation faced by Railtrack. In terms of threats, there was no threat. In terms of the use of the

23
regulator or denying the regulator his position, I was clear that the first people to raise the issue of suspending the regime of regulation were the advisers to Railtrack in August, when they produced the information. Of course, in my conversations with the chairman of Railtrack on 5 October, we covered the issue of how the regulator would deal with those matters, but the position was made clear at that time.
In terms of the responsibilities, surely the question that shareholders should be asking concerns the responsibility of the directors of Railtrack. They knew the financial situation of Railtrack—that without additional Government funding, they would be unable to make a going concern statement on 8 November—so why did not the directors, who have a legal responsibility to their shareholders, tell them about the financial situation? The directors failed to do so.
On the point that the hon. Lady raises about the demand now interestingly being made from the Conservative Benches for compensation to Railtrack shareholders, let us be clear what that would mean.
Mrs. May: I did not mention it.
Mr. Byers: If the hon. Lady is not arguing for compensation for Railtrack shareholders, she should say that clearly. It was not clear in her question. The argument was clear—that £3.60, the claim that they are making, is reasonable. It would mean over £1 billion of extra taxpayers' money going to the interests of the shareholders.
On the issue of the stations, the value of the stations was a matter for the High Court judge when he considered the petition on the Sunday afternoon.
That is the sequence of events. The Opposition may not like it. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was in government, he was a sponsor of Railtrack. We have destroyed one of his better ideas, which says a lot about the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Railtrack had its time under the Conservatives. This Government have rightly brought it to an end.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if anyone has set out in this sad sorry saga of incompetence to destroy Railtrack, it is the directors and the managing directors, who have made it clear to the market, which has responded by making a clear judgment on the worth of the shares, that they were not capable of continuing to meet their obligation? Is he aware that it was Railtrack's figures that put it in the difficulty where it was not able to meet the costs of the modernisation of the west coast main line? Will he give an undertaking that, whatever comes into being as a result of this appalling incompetence, the new organisation will not only be transparent and responsible to the passenger and taxpayer, but very different in kind from Railtrack?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point from her experience as the Chairman of the Transport Committee. I think that we now have an opportunity to look at how to restructure the railway industry to put the interests of the travelling public first. What most
24
commentators recognise is that the way in which Railtrack was constructed originally denied it the opportunity to put the interests of the travelling public first. We have overcome that. It was because of Railtrack being unable to meet its debts that the High Court allowed the petition for railway administration. Now we can move forward and put in place a structure whereby, because it will be a not-for-profit organisation, any operating surpluses can be used for the interests of the railway network. At last we can make progress towards providing a railway network that is fit for the fourth largest economy in the world, which simply is not the case at the moment.
Mr. Don Foster: Although the way in which the Secretary of State has handled the Railtrack issue has led to some confusion, not least in relation to the ownership of various assets, I believe that he has broadly followed the right way. Does he not agree that it was absolutely sensible to work up in detail the various proposals before making a final decision, and that today's effort by the Conservative party is basically nothing more than whingeing on behalf of the shareholders, who since May 1996 have received £700 million in dividends and who, incidentally, obtained Railtrack plc in the first instance for a knock-down price, undervalued by £6 billion?
Does the Secretary of State not agree that what the vast majority of the travelling public are interested in is ensuring that we have a safe, reliable and affordable railway system? To that end, on the question of decision taking, having specifically promised an end to the self-defeating system of penalties and compensation, can my right hon. Friend tell us what action he has taken and what decisions he intends to make? Having promised greater co-operation and collaboration between rail and track, can he tell us what decisions he has taken on that issue?
Finally, may I ask the Secretary of State this: having promised a not-for-profit public interest company, limited by guarantee, can he once again give the House an absolute assurance that the new body that he will allow to come into being will categorically not see the recreation of that obscene conflict, in a monopoly, between shareholder profit and passenger safety?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman's figures are right: since 1996, the shareholders of Railtrack have received about £700 million in dividends. His figures are also right in relation to the knock-down price for which the Railtrack shares were sold. In fact, the current chairman of the Conservative party, when he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, conducted a most useful investigation into the circumstances of the privatisation of Railtrack. As Chairman of the Select Committee, he concluded that the shares sold by the Conservative Government at that time were undervalued by about £6 billion. That was taxpayers' money that could have been put to useful purposes. It is helpful that the current chairman of the Conservative party was able to provide that information for the benefit of the House.
Some of the confusion has been caused by the fact that there are two companies: Railtrack plc, which holds the licence to operate the network and which is in administration; and Railtrack Group, which is not in administration and is still run by the directors of Railtrack.

25
Any value in Railtrack Group can be made available to shareholders. That will be a decision for the directors of Railtrack Group—rightly so.
We are looking at penalties and compensation—as I think I noted in my statement on 15 October. We shall set out proposals and ideas to the House later on.
In relation to moving forward, I believe that the appointment of Richard Bowker as the new chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority has been widely welcomed. He will bring renewed vigour to the work of the authority and will give a real sense of direction and purpose.
Finally, yes, I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that whatever structure is put in place—as is made clear in the guidelines that I announced last week—we do not want to repeat the structural mistakes that were made in relation to Railtrack and privatisation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that when someone invests in that gambling den, the stock market, shares are likely to go up and then to fall again? When we consider Railtrack, it is almost incredible that the company made a hash of it. Now the Tories and their friends are worried about the money in their pockets. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House that when he discussed the three options the first was the present course; the second was to carry on handing over tons of money; and the third, which he has skimmed over very quickly, was renationalisation—I assume, without compensation? My right hon. Friend should not dismiss that option so lightly. When we consider the whole mess of British Rail and its 20-odd different pieces, at some time or other we shall have to come back to the question of a fully, publicly owned rail system in Britain.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a case that some of us have heard before about the need to nationalise the railway industry. That was one of the three Rs put to us by the advisers to Railtrack: receivership, renationalisation or restructuring. I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, but it was not an option that we pursued with a lot of vigour. However, the options before us as a result of going for railway administration will give us the chance to provide a railway network fit for our country.
My hon. Friend is right to say that shares can go up or down. What is interesting about Railtrack—uniquely for a private sector company—is that fully two thirds of all its income came directly by Government grant. That was the real problem for Railtrack. Of course, the company always depended on the Government to bail it out and sign the cheque but in the end it came once too often and the Government had to say no.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Gentleman talks about market-sensitive information. How can anyone have confidence in the integrity of his proposals when he stood back and allowed employees and the public to invest in Railtrack shares while he was working behind the scenes to devalue those
26
shares? Does he not understand that he may retain the title for the time being, but that he is in grave danger of losing the moral authority that underpins it?
Mr. Byers: I can understand the anger that the right hon. Gentleman expresses because, of course, he was a member of the Government who put Railtrack in place. It is as simple as that, and the position is very clear.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Shareholders.
Mr. Byers: Shares in Railtrack were devalued because of the actions of Railtrack directors, and the right hon. Gentleman needs to consider the fact that the price of Railtrack shares dropped dramatically over the years because of the way in which the company was run. As a former Secretary of State for Transport, he will know that there is no obligation on a Secretary of State who receives information in confidence from a company to give the details to shareholders. He knows very well where that responsibility lies: in law, it lies with the directors of Railtrack. They knew the financial situation that they faced and that the chairman had come to me on 25 July and said, "If you don't give me more money, I cannot make a statement on the 8th of November that we are a going concern." What did he tell his shareholders?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): Nothing.
Mr. Byers: That is right—nothing. He said not a word to his shareholders. I discharged my responsibilities, but did the directors and the chairman of Railtrack discharge theirs?
Mr. Bill O'Brien: My right hon. Friend must be aware that a substantial number of rail passengers support his action because of the problems and difficulties that they have witnessed during the years of privatisation. He will also be aware that there are still a number of issues to be addressed on the east coast main line. Will the new authority undertake to complete the outstanding phases to bring the east coast main line up to standard? Even today, we experienced a 90-minute delay in services between Leeds and King's Cross, and passengers are complaining about that kind of service. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the new authority will continue to maintain and improve the east coast main line?
Mr. Byers: One of the benefits of the new proposals is that the operator of the licence will no longer be responsible for major upgrades to the network. One of the great difficulties that Railtrack faced with the west coast main line was the fact that the cost was originally estimated at a little more than £2 billion, whereas the estimates are now £6 billion or £7 billion, perhaps even more. That crippled Railtrack's finances. Under the new structure that we want to put in place, the network operator will be responsible for renewals, operations and maintenance of the network, but not for major infrastructure work.
We propose a special-purpose vehicle, whereby the Government, the Strategic Rail Authority and the private sector will work together to ensure that major projects can be completed. I am confident that the east coast main line

27
could provide us with one of the first opportunities to use a special-purpose vehicle to carry out the work that I, as a user of that line, know will be so important in future.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: What advice on the timing of the Railtrack announcement did the Secretary of State receive from his special adviser, Jo Moore?
Mr. Byers: No advice.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he would have been irresponsible if he had not put in train the detailed contingency work required to deal with the incompetence of the gang of feckless mendicants that was put together by the Conservative party? The fact that Conservative Members are unaware of the need for such contingency plans shows how far away they now are from the responsibility of government. If they continue with such absurd and pointless antics, it will be far longer before they can even form a credible Opposition.
Mr. Byers: It is noticeable that, since Railtrack was put into administration, no great difficulties have arisen. I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all the workers in Railtrack. While the company has been in administration, they have turned up daily and worked in a dedicated and highly motivated fashion: they are railway people, putting the interests of the railways first.
In taking the decision to go for railway administration, we had to prepare for a range of issues, of which the railway administration orders are an example. The House would rightly have been critical if we had not been able to act on our decision to go for railway administration because we had not put the contingency arrangements in place. We had to make such arrangements—it was one of the options available to me. Therefore, when I took the decision on Friday 5 October, 1 had to make a judgment between railway administration or additional Government funding for the proposals from Railtrack. I took the decision that no further Government money would be made available, and we had the appropriate contingency planning in place for that decision.
Mr. Peter Lilley: The Secretary of State ended his rather partisan statement by saying that privatisation had prevented money from being invested in services for passengers, and that instead it had been paid out in dividends. Will he confirm the answer that a junior Minister gave me: that the total invested by private investors in Railtrack exceeds by a factor of nearly three the amount paid out in dividends? Will the Secretary of State explain how people are to be persuaded to invest in other public-private finance initiatives when they know that the Government, having pocketed their money, may suddenly cease to pay dividends or to return any of it to them?
Mr. Byers: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government made crystal clear our response in relation to Railtrack on 2 April, but I shall repeat that important statement for the benefit of the House. When we agreed on 2 April to make available £1.5 billion to Railtrack—£337 million of which was paid on 1 October—we wanted
28
our approach to Railtrack and to other companies in the railway sector to be made clear to shareholders. That is why we said:
"The Government stands behind the rail system but not individual rail companies and their shareholders".
Nothing could be clearer. Railtrack's shareholders should have seen that and asked whether the Government were going to continue to bail out the company. In the end, we decided that no further Government funds should be made available.
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the City knows that Railtrack is a unique being. The City is still interested in public-private partnerships because it knows that they are quite different from the privatisation of the railways that he so enthusiastically supported.
Dr. Howard Stoate: I thank my right hon. Friend for the helpful statement that he will put the travelling public first. That is more than we hear from Conservative Members, who seem to be interested only in shareholders.
My right hon. Friend will be only too well aware that the channel tunnel rail link phase 2 will not just benefit the travelling public but will be enormously important to the economy of this country. It will bring huge regeneration opportunities to north Kent, east London and all points north. Will he therefore assure the House that major projects such as the rail link will go ahead on target? That would reassure my constituents in Dartford that it is business as usual and that we will have the economic development that we badly need.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of the channel tunnel rail link phase 2. He will be aware that it is a good example of how a special-purpose vehicle can be used effectively. The project is on time and is under budget, and we are confident that it will proceed. It will be unaffected by the changes made as a result of Railtrack going into administration.
My hon. Friend asked me to give assurances to the people of north Kent and east London who want the channel tunnel rail link to proceed. I can give them the commitment that they want: the project is moving ahead; it is on time and on schedule; and we look forward to receiving the benefits of that investment.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As co-chairman of the all-party railways group, I put it to the Secretary of State that in all his statements on this sorry fiasco he has sought to define three separate categories. He has mentioned the travelling public and employees, and has exhibited his and his Back Benchers' visceral hatred of shareholders and the private sector. However, he has failed to understand that much of the travelling public and an even greater proportion of the employees are shareholders. Will he answer the specific allegation that his inaction between the end of July and early October created a false market in Railtrack shares? He misled shareholders and, in particular, did not discharge his responsibilities in the last week? Having talked about his three Rs, he should add a fourth—his resignation.
Mr. Byers: The decision was taken on 5 October not to provide additional funding for Railtrack. As a

29
consequence. Railtrack could not cover its debts because it could not control its costs. It would be interesting to know what approach the hon. Gentleman would have taken. On 25 July, I received information in confidence from Railtrack's chairman that unless it received more Government money it would not be able to make a going-concern statement on 8 November. Would the hon. Gentleman have expected me to tell Railtrack's shareholders of that on Monday? Clearly not.
There is a conflict in the Conservatives' approach. Information is given to a Secretary of State in confidence, which he abides by and respects, and he discharges his legal duties up to 5 October. Why did not the chairman of Railtrack ensure that his shareholders knew that without extra Government money he would not be able to make a going-concern statement? That is what the hon. Gentleman needs to answer.
David Winnick: Should not my right hon. Friend be grateful to the Opposition for raising this subject? It constantly reminds the public of the disastrous privatisation of the industry, the misery that has flowed from it and the vast sums of public money that have gone into private pockets. If I were Secretary of State, I would suggest that the Opposition continue to raise it time and again.
Mr. Byers: I am more than happy to discuss the way forward for the railway industry. As I think I said in my statement on 15 October, the circumstances of Railtrack going into administration are regrettable, and no one will celebrate them. However, now that it has happened, we have a golden opportunity to create a railway network fit for the 21st century. The real challenges lie ahead. We have to put in place changes to franchising, the structure and regulation to ensure that the railway system can respond to the new pressures and demands of the time. That is exactly what we intend to do with the new opportunities that are available to us.
Several hon. Members rose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Orders of the Day

  Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.13 pm
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Chamber is slightly quieter and less crowded than when I addressed it a couple of weeks ago.
  The Bill is straightforward. It has a single specific purpose—to equalise the entitlement to concessionary travel for men and women at the age of 60. It will bring to some 8 million the number of people who benefit from the Government's statutory requirements for travel concessions.
  Concessionary fare schemes offer cheaper travel on public transport for people who are economically disadvantaged, and demonstrate our commitment to fighting social exclusion. The Government are committed to ensuring that bus travel in particular remains within the means of those on limited incomes and those who have mobility difficulties.
  Legislation requiring local authorities to offer a minimum of 50 per cent. reductions for elderly and disabled people on local buses came into force earlier this year. Those changes are benefiting 5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people across England and Wales. With this Bill, a further 1 million men aged between 60 and 64 will be able to share the benefits of concessionary travel, bringing the total number of people who benefit to about 8 million.
  The provision for travel concessions is at present in the Transport Act 1985, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000. As I said, local authorities in England and Wales must arrange for elderly and disabled people living in their areas to receive a half-fare concession or better on local bus services—those within the local authority's area—subject to the person obtaining a permit, which must be given free of charge.
  Local authorities also have discretion to offer further concessions on bus and other public passenger transport services, such as local trains, metros, ferries or the London underground. They may also provide concessionary travel outside their boundaries if they wish. Indeed, many local authorities offer concessions on other modes of public transport and fares cheaper than half price, or they join to offer an area-wide scheme—an obvious example of that is London. However, authorities must not offer a scheme providing less than the half-fare statutory minimum.
  David Winnick: The Bill raises an important point for the west midlands. I certainly welcome what my right hon. Friend is introducing, but as he knows, since he is a fellow west midlands Member of Parliament, the region has a totally free bus scheme, which pensioners are keen to keep. We hope—I am sure that he agrees—that there will be no undermining of that scheme, which has been in operation for some time?
  Mr. Spellar: As my hon. Friend is aware, all that the legislation provides, which is important in many areas of

  31
  the country, is the statutory minimum. It is open to local authorities to provide more than that, and, as he rightly says, the west midlands has been doing so for a considerable period. I know that he has been an extremely worthy exponent of the advantages of the scheme and the mobility that it gives elderly and disabled people in the region. He is aware of the commitment of local authorities in the west midlands to maintaining that scheme.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I was a little surprised to hear the Minister mention ferries. I understand that there is an issue concerning any crossing of the Solent except by jobseekers and some hospital patients. Will he clarify that specific matter?
  Mr. Spellar: It is open to local authorities to offer further concessions. The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman may need to be discussed with the local authorities involved—presumably, Isle of Wight unitary council and Hampshire county council—but, following his intervention, I am certainly happy to have a look at it.
  At the moment, entitlement to travel concessions for elderly people is linked to pensionable age, as defined in the Pensions Act 1995. That means that women may take advantage of concessionary travel schemes offered by their local authority at 60, but men must wait until their 65th birthday to do so. There is of course no age barrier to entitlement to concessionary fare schemes for disabled people. Given the opposition to current legislation, which discriminates on the ground of gender, we have decided to end the anomaly. In this Bill, we are therefore legislating to equalise entitlement at 60. We expect the provisions to take effect from April 2003 at the latest.
  Under the provisions of the Pensions Act, pensionable age will start to equalise from 2010, so that by 2020 both men and women will receive state pensions at age 65. Clause 1(4) provides reserve powers for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to restore the link to entitlement to concessionary fares with that to state pensions. Should orders be made under that power—in 2010 at the earliest—the age of entitlement to concessionary travel for both men and women would similarly rise to 65 by 2020.
  The Bill will not create new concessionary fare schemes. Local authorities will have to adjust their concessionary fare schemes to broaden entitlement to men aged between 60 and 64, but we envisage that the additional administrative burden on local authorities of issuing passes will be minimal.
  Reimbursement arrangements under existing legislative provisions mean that the financial impact on transport operators will be neutral. Operators are reimbursed for revenue forgone so that they are financially no better and no worse off than if they did not participate in the concessionary fares scheme. Calculation of the level of reimbursement by local authorities may take into account increases in the number of passengers travelling—the so-called generation factor. Those reimbursement arrangements are well tried and tested, and we do not foresee any difficulty in administering or operating the increased entitlement.
  There is no doubt that concessionary fares are expensive. In England, local authorities currently spend £440 million each year on their schemes, and extending
  32
  eligibility to men aged 60 to 64 might cost an additional £50 million a year in England. That will be a new cost to local authorities and additional funding will be made available through the revenue support grant in the normal way as part of the local government finance settlement.
  In terms of territorial extent, the Bill applies to England and Wales. The National Assembly for Wales has its own commencement powers. Concessionary travel is devolved to Scotland and separate legislation to equalise entitlement is making progress there. In Northern Ireland, entitlement is already equalised at 65.
  As a further measure to tackle social exclusion, I take this opportunity to announce our agreement in principle to a proposal under which coach operators would offer half-price fares to older and disabled passengers on long-distance scheduled coaches in England; in return for the fare concessions, operators would, for the first time, receive fuel duty rebate. That was recommended by the Commission for Integrated Transport. After discussions with the Treasury, we are responding to that recommendation. Many older and disabled people rely on coaches to travel long distances, especially to maintain family links, so I am sure that they will welcome a free pass entitling them to half-price fares.
  The Bill is a small but important measure that will ensure that men and women receive the benefits of concessionary travel without discrimination. That will be welcomed by an additional 1 million elderly people and, I hope, by the whole House.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: The Minister is right to describe the Bill as a small and modest piece of legislation, but on a personal level it is frightening, because it reminds us of our own mortality. I noted with considerable shock that should we make the decision in 2010 to phase in the concessions to reflect the arrangements for the state pension, I will become a beneficiary in June 2014, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in June 2016. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), looks at me inquiringly, but I was far too gallant to look up in "Vacher's" the information needed for me to state the relevant date for her.
  We shall not oppose the Bill, but we have some reservations which are founded on the law of unintended consequences. We are worried that the Bill might adversely affect some discretionary schemes such that some other groups have their rights withdrawn—the Minister had a taste of that concern courtesy of his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)— or existing beneficiaries of age-related schemes get a poorer deal.
  The worst that could happen is that the scheme becomes bogged down in arguments about the formula, so we must be sure that it is correct and not based on false assumptions. The Minister is aware that the Local Government Association, of which I, with many others, have the honour to be a vice-president, believes that his Department might have underestimated the effects.
  Agreement was reached on an increased aggregate revenue support grant. Provision of £54 million—slightly more than the original estimate of £47 million—was made for the cost of the proposals. I understand that the

  33
  Department estimates that the additional requirements under the Bill will cost about £50 million. The basis of those calculations will have to be carefully considered during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
  The principal difference resulting from the reduction in the qualifying age for men is that many of the recipients will be in full-time employment; their transportation usage is likely to be greater than that of a retired person. I note that, in another place, assurances of full consultation were given by the Government; I hope that they will be honoured.
  Mr. Spellar indicated assent.
  Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is nodding, which is reassuring.
  Making estimates, both nationally and locally, of the consequences of the Bill is difficult, as operators have not produced a body of evidence for revenue that will be forgone by current public transport users in that economically active category. I am not entirely sure—I am not pushing this aggressively—that we are on tried and tested ground.
  Mr. Spellar: In a similarly co-operative way, may I help the hon. Gentleman? Of course, he will be aware that concessionary fare schemes start at 9.30 am. Therefore, allowing for the fact that some people work shifts, a considerable number of those in work would not be able to use their pass because the rush hour is already excluded. We believe that that will tend to minimise the additional costs, but I recognise that there may be an issue, on which we shall consult.
  Mr. Pickles: That is fair and reasonable but, by way of an attempted rebuttal, the situation will be continuing for a period of years. The Government are actively encouraging flexi-working and public transport companies are actively offering inducements to take up spare capacity outside peak hours. I therefore hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying that I am not entirely sure that we are using tried and tested methods.
  The LGA said:
  "the imposition of this specific new, burden with its widely varying local consequences requires an innovative look at whether there can be transitional measures to ease the particular problems which some authorities may face."
  That is reasonable. After all, this is the second large review that transport authorities have had to undertake within a relatively short period. We do not know how concessions will be bedded in. Ministers involved with the Transport Act 2000 talked about the way in which the measures would be bedded in. It will be several years before concessions are on-stream. It would be a mistake to embark on a fundamental review of the formula, but we should look most carefully at the transitional arrangements.
  For example, £15 million was allocated to the London boroughs to cover the cost of equalisation for the freedom pass. Because of the way in which the grant system and the mechanism works, they received only £11 million, leaving the council taxpayer to fill the hole. There was a time when I could recite the formula for the allocation but, I am pleased to tell the House, I have forgotten it and have no desire to learn it again. Nevertheless, it illustrates
  34
  the point that these things are complicated; we can come up with a simple intention with which we all agree, but find ourselves leaving local authorities materially worse off.
  We have already heard from the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the Minister's friend and neighbour from the west midlands, who expressed worries similar to those of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. In a briefing document prepared for our debate, it says that there are concerns that
  "need to be carefully considered as the Bill proceeds if there are not to be further cuts in the provision of concessionary fares for blind and partially sighted people and other disabled"
  groups.
  The Minister conceded that some earlier discretionary schemes are much better than existing schemes. The failure to match funding and reality has already created problems in a number of authorities. The Local Government Association has identified about 20 local authorities that have made amendments to existing alternative schemes which might be taken as reductions. The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to the West Midlands passenger transport authority. Many authorities have removed a previous 100 per cent. concession for all modes of transport and replaced it with the choice- of a free bus pass allowing half-price travel on buses, or the option of paying for a pass giving bigger reductions.
  In Birmingham a scheme that had been in place since just before the first world war was ended without consultation with blind and partially sighted people. Redress was made following the intervention of local Members of Parliament, but I understand that the chairman of the passenger transport authority says that unless there is a substantial increase in grant, the process will be reversed. I hope that I am wrong about that, but the chairman is on public record as saying so.
  Lancashire county council proposes to stop issuing passes to blind people allowing them to travel for a flat 30p fare. Existing passes will be maintained, but in future blind people will be issued with a statutory half-price pass for buses only. The RNIB highlights the problem of blind and partially sighted people having the right change, the possibility that people with white sticks or guide dogs may be targets for muggers, and the social inconvenience of blind people delaying other passengers.
  The RNIB has anecdotal evidence that other local authorities have reduced their concessionary fares to the 50 per cent. statutory minimum, even before they incur the costs of the Bill when it is enacted. I do not believe for a moment that that is what the Government want. I also know of the long discussions and the brinkmanship in which everyone in local authorities engages with Government in respect of funding. That is why I refer to the law of unintended consequences.
  We are not likely to get primary legislation such as the Bill very often. We have made a number of comments in relation to the Transport Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999. We are missing an opportunity to pull together all the concessionary fares and put them on a unified footing. We should decide, for example, whether schemes are to be available to young people. The LGA believes that the Bill may provide an opportunity for statutory eligibility in respect of certain persons to be inserted in the Transport Act 1985 or the Transport Act

  35
  2000, perhaps by applying the statutory minimum scheme or other schemes to schoolchildren and/or young persons in full-time education.
  The Minister spoke about coaches. Some operators offer a 33 per cent. discount to people of pensionable age, which is welcome. When the Under-Secretary replies, it would be helpful if she could spell out the kind of sum envisaged. Will that be in addition to the £12 million coach concessionary fare scheme? Can she also clarify whether the money will come from the unallocated Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions funds in the spending plans for the next three years under the 10-year transport plan?
  It would be helpful if the Minister could respond on another matter that causes all kinds of problems, particularly for authorities that border large conurbations. The problem is particularly acute when that large conurbation is London. It concerns journeys that start in one local authority area and finish in another. I have difficulty explaining to pensioners in my constituency why they experience problems when they undertake journeys outside the Brentwood area and into Romford. It is a serious problem for my constituents because all our hospital services are outside the local authority area, which causes confusion and resentment.
  Help the Aged said of the Bill:
  "Our ultimate goal is for all over 60 in the United Kingdom to have a freedom pass to travel by bus when and where they like in their locality. Only then will older people nationally feel that they have been given a fair deal."

  Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) introduced a private Member's Bill that sought to amend section 145 of the Transport Act 2000 so that it covered neighbouring authorities. That tidying up might be helpful. It may not be possible to do so, but it would be appropriate to examine the possibility in Committee. Only in that way will we be able to iron out that major anomaly in the scheme.
  Obviously, we shall not oppose the Bill. We require some scrutiny of it, principally of the measures that I have outlined. We believe that the Bill should answer many of the questions left unanswered in the course of proceedings on the Transport Act 2000. Above all, we must guard against the law of unintended consequences.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill and will not seek to divide the House this evening, or whenever the opportunity arises.
  Let me begin by saying in a friendly way to the Minister that it is a pity, given the crowded legislative programme, to have this legislation before us. The Government were given an opportunity in February of last year to put this matter right. During the Committee stage of the Transport Bill I moved amendments that would have had the same effect as this Bill. When I did that on 29 February, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), said that he recognised the strength of feeling about the issue and claimed that his ministerial postbag
  "has made me well aware of the issue, so I have thought hard about it"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 February 2000; c. 818.].
  36
  Unfortunately, having thought hard about it, he decided to do nothing and the problem remains.
  The Government had a further opportunity to act before drafting this Bill. As a result of the endeavours of the excellent organisation, Parity, a case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government were told that Mr. Matthews case had been deemed to be admissible and they had to decide what to do. I was a bit disappointed in the Government's treatment of the issue. I looked back in Hansard and saw that on 13 February this year, when I asked the Government what they would do about it the same then Minister said:
  "The Government are certainly aware of the Matthews case, which is before the European Court, to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. We are considering the implementation of that case and our response."—[Official Report, 13 February 2001; Vol. 363. c. 144.]

  I was delighted that they did not think very long about it. Only three days later, at the Labour party conference in Glasgow, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
  "I have also received representations saying 'why shouldn't men and women qualify at the same age?' I agree.
  I can announce today that in a second term we will equalise the age for concessionary fares, benefiting an extra one million people over 60 years of age. That's good for transport and it's good for social justice, too."
  It is slightly odd that the Deputy Prime Minister did not point out that this was being forced on the Government. It was not something that they had done of their own volition and could have done several months earlier. Notwithstanding all that, I am delighted that at last the Government have seen sense, many months later than might have been the case.
  Like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, I. too, have concerns about three issues, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate them in Committee. First, the Minister will be aware of concerns among local government associations that the Government's current estimates of the likely additional cost of this measure may be inadequate. I am delighted that the Government have given assurances that there will continue to be consultation on these issues. Like the hon. Gentleman, I accept that there is a problem in that we do not have an effective set of data to use as a starting base from which to make comparisons of future costs. However, it is vital that the Government stick to their assurance and allow for continuing consultation on costs.
  The hon. Gentleman said very eloquently that there are many examples of local authorities having to make cuts in other concessionary fare schemes as a result of introducing new ones. He referred to examples in London, the west midlands and Lancashire. I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen those and other examples in the briefs that have been prepared in advance of this debate. Introducing one set of concessionary fare schemes must not lead to the abandonment of others that have been considered very necessary in supporting people of various groups.
  Secondly, there is the opportunity to widen the scope of the categories of people who could be helped through concessionary fare schemes. Like many other people on both sides of the House, I am concerned about the situation in our educational system. One in two young people at the age of 16 gives up the opportunity to continue with any further education and, when questioned, a large proportion of them cite the cost of transport as

  37
  one of the key reasons for giving up further educational opportunities. Given that we are all desperately keen to see an increase in educational opportunities for that age group, I hope that we will use the Bill to address one of the barriers—the cost of transport—to opportunities for further education.
  The third issue, raised by the hon. Gentleman, is cross-boundary travel. I received a briefing from Age Concern which expresses the problem succinctly. It says:
  "The government's present limitation seems to expect that elderly and disabled people should keep all their family and friends, all their health care providers, all their shopping, entertainment and recreations, all their places of worship—indeed all their possible reasons for travel—in the same local authority area as themselves. The government may believe in strong local neighbourhoods, but this seems to be carrying the principle a little too far. Age Concern England believes in a minimum travel concession scheme which is truly national."

  I recognise that the Government, too, wish to make progress in developing a national scheme, examining all the various schemes that currently exist and finding ways of establishing more integration between them.
  I welcome the Minister's announcement that we have at last found a way forward in respect of national coach travel. He said that there would be a Government quid pro quo in relation to availability of a fuel duty rebate to fund that, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will tell us a little more about how she expects the scheme to operate. To whom, for instance, should an individual apply? I am not talking just about applications for tickets; what will be the source of the recompense? Will it come from local authorities, or will there be a nationally funded scheme whereby individual coach operators go directly to the Department for any recompense that is not covered by the availability of fuel duty rebate? This is, however, a move in the right direction.
  I feel that there is further work to be done in Committee on the three issues of funding, the widening of the scheme to other groups—particularly young people—and its extension to cross individual council boundaries. Nevertheless, like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, we welcome the proposals and look forward to making more progress in Committee.
  4.46 pm
  Mrs. Betty Williams: I welcome the Bill with open arms. I can tell the Minister that many of my constituents who have been writing to me about the issue for some months will also welcome it, as, no doubt, will others throughout the country.
  Will the Minister clarify one point? If the National Assembly for Wales wants to bring the scheme forward to, say, April 2002, will it he able to do so? That is important, because the Assembly may want to introduce such schemes before other parts of the country. That is what devolution means.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) in confirming that Her Majesty's Opposition strongly support this relatively straightforward measure, which arises from the Matthews case, which was taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
  38
  Like the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), I should like to know when the Minister expects the measure to come into force. That is important, especially in relation to London. As she knows, the two-yearly scheme in London must be renegotiated at the beginning of 2002, and that poses a particular problem for the capital. If the Bill comes into operation before the end of this year, London will be able to incorporate it into the new scheme that starts in 2002; otherwise, it will have two options. Either it must pay for the additional scheme for a year, or the operation of the scheme will be delayed until 2004. I hope that she can clear that up. It is in everyone's interests for the Government to push the Bill through so that it can come into force by the end of this year, and the additional 1 million or so people who will benefit can do so in 2002 rather than 2003.
  I calculate that the Government already invest, or propose to invest, some £571 million in concessionary schemes of one kind or another. Under the Transport Act 1985, which gives local authorities quite wide powers of discretion, they spend £440 million, and £54 million under the Transport Act 2000. As I understand it, this Bill will cost £50 million in England alone, and another £15 million in Scotland and Wales. With the fuel rebate scheme that the Minister for Transport mentioned today, which has an estimated cost of £12 million, the total Government spend on concessionary travel is £571 million. As I understand it, 7 million people-5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people—benefit from concessionary travel, and the Bill's proposed scheme will make another 1 million people eligible. The Government are therefore operating a very considerable concession.
  I should like to examine commuting, who will benefit from the new concession and when they will benefit from it. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) promoted his Road Transport Bill which, had the Government accepted it, would have allowed one local authority's concession scheme to operate in another local authority's area. Such an arrangement seems only fair. If the Bill is to establish a national scheme, each local authority's scheme should operate in other local authorities' systems. I hope that the Minister will address that.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked about the scope of the Bill, which will clearly apply only to those who travel between 9 am and 11 pm. It seems likely that those who work flexi-hours and particularly those who have reached more senior posts towards the end of their working lives will be able to take advantage of the scheme. Will the Minister therefore say something about reimbursement of local authorities, such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, that face a burden because of considerably increased usage? I am glad that Ministers will consult the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government, but will they consider that issue carefully?
  We all know about the anomalies that arise when any grant is distributed through the standard spending assessment via the rate support grant. Although I know that the Government are committed to distributing the concession outlined in the Bill by means of those mechanisms, I do not know why they cannot directly reimburse local authorities on the basis of concessionary journeys made, tickets issued or schemes implemented, so

  39
  that no local authority will be out of pocket. What do the Government plan to do if a local authority can prove—clearly, it would have to do so retrospectively—that it is considerably out of pocket because of the skewing effect of the SSA system?
  Further to my hon. Friend's comments on the law of unintended consequences, will the Minister tackle the postal code lottery? On the Bill's Second Reading in the other place—I believe that this is precisely the type of example that my hon. Friend had in mind—in describing the situation for visually impaired people in Birmingham, Baroness Wilkins said:
  "people in Birmingham have enjoyed free travel on public transport since 1913, but that is to end this August. Instead of a free off-peak travel pass, covering train, metro and all bus travel, or a pass costing £18.70 for free travel at all hours, they will be entitled to half-price bus travel only. If they want to continue to have the freedom to travel on the bus, rail and metro, they will have to buy extra tickets costing £232 per year for off-peak and £265 a year for 24-hour travel."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 2001: Vol. 626, c. 944.1
  Instead of having something for a relatively nominal fee of £18.70, they face considerably increased costs. She went on to say that, not surprisingly, blind, deaf and partially sighted people living in Birmingham had been much distressed by the move. I hope that the Government will encourage local authorities to use their discretion and ensure that existing schemes can continue.
  It is high time that we in this House ended the postcode lottery of Government money. If the Government offer a scheme on transport concessions, health or anything else, it should be offered to everybody in the country equally, and not on the basis of postcode.
  Mr. Spellar: What about the council?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Who one elects to one's council is also important, and local authorities have discretion. Here we have a Government scheme that is fettering local authorities' discretion because councils will not have the money to offer such schemes in the future.
  Are the Government happy that the scheme will absolve Northern Ireland, which, as the Minister mentioned, will equalise the age for the scheme at 65? That seems to be unfair to women. If women in Great Britain can take advantage of the scheme at 60, why must the women of Northern Ireland wait until they are 65?
  It was unfortunate that Mr. Matthews had to go to the European Court of Human Rights to bring about this proposal. We are living in an age of increased equality and I hope that, in future, the Government will think more clearly and get the elementary things right before they rush legislation through the House. The hon. Member for Bath was right to point out that Liberal Democrat amendments tabled on a previous occasion would have avoided the need for us to discuss this measure this afternoon. When Opposition parties table amendments, I hope that the Government will consider our opposition with the depth and purpose that it deserves.
  Nevertheless, 1 million people will benefit from the proposal and will be grateful to the Government for what has happened in the House today. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the scheme will come into operation at the end of this year, so that those 1 million people will be able to benefit next year instead of in 2003.
  4.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I welcome this brief yet interesting debate on this short but important Bill. The level of interest in the Bill in the Chamber does not reflect that outside the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that given the gender and age profile of Members of Parliament, one might have thought that the Bill would have been of more interest to them. I assure him that I will be up with him collecting my pass.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall get into trouble with the Register of Members' Interests if I do not declare that 1 will collect my pass in 2013.
  Ms Keeble: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
  Concessionary fares are of major interest to a wide range of people outside the House, as is reflected in the constant letters and queries on the subject. Some controversies have been discussed this afternoon, such as the concerns raised by people from the Isle of Wight, Birmingham and the west midlands and elsewhere.
  The Government have made it clear that local authorities' discretion is not fettered by previous legislation. We strongly encouraged local authorities to maintain their existing programmes and not to reduce their schemes because of legislation. Reductions in Birmingham and the west midlands have been discussed, but I understand that Birmingham city council has agreed to revert to its original scheme and pay for free travel through a free bus pass for blind residents, although other disabled residents receive a slightly less generous concession.
  Anxieties have also been raised about Greater Manchester. The Department's advice makes it clear that it can continue with its previous schemes. Representatives from the area will meet me to discuss some of their concerns. We are anxious to ensure that councils maintain their existing schemes.
  Mr. Pickles: Will the Minister confirm that the holder of the social services portfolio in Birmingham's cabinet is so worried about lack of adequate funding for the concessionary fare scheme in Birmingham that he fears that he may be forced to cut blind people's free travel again?
  Ms Keeble: As we progress with the scheme, we will consult all the local authorities, and I am sure that Birmingham city council will want to raise the matter.
  Hon. Members asked several other questions, which I shall try to answer before concluding with some general remarks. We were asked about cost. The total cost of implementing the Bill is expected to be approximately £50 million, but there will be careful discussions with local authorities about that. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is right that the way in which the grant is provided to local authorities will have to be carefully calculated.
  Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced a concessionary coach travel scheme, which will be implemented through the coach industry.

  41
  Discussions about that will take place with the industry. The scheme is expected to cost approximately £10 million.
  Mr. Don Foster: What is its likely starting date?
  Ms Keeble: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that because we must sort out the exact details of its operation so that it is effected in an orderly way.
  Hon. Members asked about cross-border travel. Again, it is up to local authorities to work together to provide schemes that are valuable to local residents. Nothing prevents them from making arrangements with each other to fulfil the travel requirements of their local residents. We urge them to do that.
  The hon. Gentleman claimed that he thought of the scheme first and that we could have implemented it some time ago. He has made such comments before. For many years, entitlement to concessionary fares has been linked to the state pension age: 60 for women but 65 for men. It was expected that the age would gradually equalise at 65 by 2020 under the Pensions Act 1995. Parliament has therefore already legislated on age equalisation.
  During the progress of the Transport Act 2000, we were aware of claims that entitlement to concessionary travel was unfair on the ground of gender. However, given that age entitlement for concessionary, fares has been questioned again, and the strength of feeling about the matter, it is right to introduce this small but important Bill to equalise the age of entitlement earlier than 2020. I hope that hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, will accept the measure in the spirit in which it is intended.
  Mr. Foster: I do.
  Ms Keeble: Good.
  Several hon. Members raised the serious issue of why concessions cannot be provided for everyone, but it is not possible; they must be targeted. Bus transport is one of the main means of overcoming barriers to work or attending hospital appointments and we need to ensure that people are not disadvantaged because of lack of access to it. The Government are especially concerned about that issue, and that is why we recently introduced the urban bus challenge, following the introduction of the rural bus challenge programme, so that we can find ways to target bus services at those people who need them. The lack of bus transport must not prevent people from leading normal lives or, especially, young unemployed people from finding work.
  Several hon. Members asked about schemes in the devolved areas. In Wales, a half-fare scheme was introduced on 1 April 2001. The intention is to follow that with a Wales-wide free travel scheme, funded by the Welsh Assembly, at a further cost of £21 million a year, starting in April 2002. Equalisation for eligibility for travel concessions is expected to start at the same time as in England in April 2003, and 1 hope that that information satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams).
  In Northern Ireland, a Province-wide scheme is run by the Government. It allows half-fare travel for elderly and disabled people on bus and rail services, with no charge for the pass. It is also intended to introduce free travel for pass holders from April 2002.
  Mrs. Betty Williams: I seek further clarification on the situation in Wales. If the Assembly chooses to have a
  42
  scheme that will equalise provision for men and women from April 2002, would it be possible for the Government to make provision in the Bill to allow it to do so, so that men in Wales will not have to wait until 2003?
  Ms Keeble: Decisions of that sort are for the Assembly to make. One of the consequences of the devolved Assemblies is that they will on occasion take decisions that differ from the ones that we take here. In Northern Ireland, eligibility for travel concessions is already equalised at 65.
  I think that I have answered most of the questions raised in the debate. The Government are committed to fighting social exclusion and to ensuring that all elderly people can take advantage of discounted travel. Extending the advantages to men aged 60 to 64 will help to achieve that goal. The Bill is a straightforward measure that will enable a further 1 million men to take advantage of concessionary travel on top of the 7 million elderly and disabled people who are already entitled to cheaper fares. The Bill will bring to 8 million the number of people who will benefit from statutory travel concessions, which means that at a minimum they will pay half-price bus fares with no charges for the pass. It will be a big help to many pensioners.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is it the Government's intention that the Bill should come into operation by 31 December this year to enable men aged between 60 and 64 to benefit next year instead of in 2003?
  Ms Keeble: I have already dealt with some of those issues. The Bill first has to go through Parliament, and we are in the hands of various people—including the Conservatives—when it comes to the passage of legislation. We must also resolve several issues with local authorities about the implementation and costs of the scheme. However, whenever it comes in, it will be a big help to the many pensioners who cannot afford to use public transport to get out, to visit friends and relatives, to go shopping or to get to medical appointments.
  The Bill underlines the Government's commitment to fighting social exclusion, promoting equality and, in particular, improving the lives of older people. I believe that it will be widely welcomed by people throughout the country. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  TRAVEL CONCESSIONS (ELIGIBILITY) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

Education
5.10 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
That the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.

Regulations made under the Education Act 1996, which were laid before the House on 23 October and referred to in the draft code of practice, provide the detail of the statutory requirements for assessments, statements and reviews of statements of special educational needs in England. Those consolidate the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) Regulations 2001, the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, and the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001, which themselves replaced the 1994 regulations.
We have been here before. On 10 July, I stood at the Dispatch Box to open a debate to consider a draft of the revised SEN code of practice. We had a lively and informative debate. Hon. Members will recall that, in closing it, I promised that the Government would reflect very carefully on the concerns that were expressed by a number of those who contributed, many on behalf of parents, about the guidance in that draft on quantifying the provision in children's statements of SEN.
As hon. Members will know, following the debate, we withdrew the then draft code of practice from Parliament to reflect on those concerns, and the concerns raised by Members in another place. We have made changes to deal with those concerns in the draft now before the House.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister explain why he was voting for this measure and we were voting against it at the same time as his Department withdrew it?
Mr. Timms: In closing the debate last time, I made it clear that we would listen very carefully and consider very carefully the points that were made to us. That is what we have done. The version of the code of practice that is before us reflects the results of our deliberations.
In the debate on 10 July, it was clear that a number of hon. Members were concerned that the guidance on quantifying the provision in children's statements of SEN could be interpreted as encouraging vague statements. Let me make it clear that it was never the Government's intention to weaken the position of children with statements. The guidance in the previous draft made it clear that a statement should describe all the child's special educational needs clearly and in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly and in detail appropriate provision to meet each of the child's needs; and describe the arrangements for setting shorter-term objectives for the child and any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement. It stressed the importance of the school's monitoring and evaluating the child's progress during the year. It placed new emphasis on the importance of the local education authority monitoring with the school the child's progress towards identified outcomes.
Mr. Tim Boswell: As the Minister knows, I have had a certain passing interest in these matters. Is it
44
not in fact only because many local authorities' practice fell far short of the ideal prescribed or encouraged by all Governments that the argument and the controversy in relation to which he has now conceded the point has taken place? Is it not the fact that many local authorities either could not—or in certain cases would not—make adequate and specific provision that has brought this debate about?
Mr. Timms: First, I pay tribute to the close interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in this matter over a long period and to the contributions that he has made to previous debates. Certainly, concerns have been expressed as to how the system has worked, although not exclusively in the aspects to which he alludes, and they have led to the need to revise the code of practice—hence the version that we are considering this evening.
All the advice in the earlier version of the code, to which I have drawn attention, is also included in the current version. The draft code, which we debated in July, advised that appropriate provision for each identified need should always be specified in clear, specific and detailed terms. It made it absolutely clear that LEAs must not have blanket policies such that provision is never quantified in statements—there have been some difficulties in that regard. Following helpful interventions during the debates in another place on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, the section in the draft code on assessments was strengthened to make it clear that professionals giving advice can comment on the amount of provision that they consider appropriate for a child, and that LEAs must not have blanket policies that would prevent that.
The draft code makes it clear that provision in statements should normally be quantified in terms of hours and of starting arrangements, for example.
Mr. Phil Willis: While the Minister is dealing with paragraph 8:37 of the draft code, can he give the House an example to show where provision should not be quantified?
Mr. Timms: In a moment, I will give the House an example of when such provision might not be appropriate.
The draft code also recognises—as does the current code of practice—that there will be cases where some flexibility is required to meet the changing needs of the child concerned. A code of practice can never dictate the precise details of the provision to be made for each and every child. There must be some flexibility so as to respond specifically to the individual needs and circumstances of different children.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for an example. In the case of a visually impaired child in a mainstream school—an example to which I have referred in a previous debate—it may be that the child or the school require advice or help from a specialist teacher of the visually impaired, but it may make no sense to specify the number of hours in the statement. Alternatively, a minimum number of hours may suffice, if the time needs to fluctuate with the changing needs of the child, or their teachers, for support. Similarly, the child may need low-vision aids and information and communication technology equipment. As the child matures or curriculum requirements change, that provision might become out of date, in which case the specialist teacher, with the school, will identify more

45
appropriate aids. I hope that that example enables the hon. Gentleman to see that there will be cases where it makes sense to be flexible about precisely how needs are specified in the statement.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister confirm that that example represents an exception, not the rule, and that there will be flexibility only in exceptional cases?
Mr. Timms: I can confirm that we would normally expect the quantification to be in the statement. So that there is no confusion on that point, I reiterate the comments made last week in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Ashton: she pointed out that the word "normally" means that, in the majority of circumstances, we would expect to see provision in a statement quantified. In some circumstances there needs to be flexibility but normally we expect LEAs to quantify.
It is clear from the wording in paragraphs 8:36 and 8:37 of the draft code that LEAs should normally quantify provision in statements, but that there will be cases where some flexibility is required. It is equally clear that decisions must be taken on an individual basis by a careful assessment of the individual child's difficulties and the educational setting in which the child may be taught.
I have spoken first about quantification as it was the issue that most concerned the House, and I hope that I have provided reassurance on that point. However, changes have also been made that address other issues raised by hon. Members in July. First, the advice in chapter 7 of the draft code relating to children with medical needs clarifies that, where a child has medical needs that impact on his or her access to education, LEAs should consider whether there is a need for a statutory assessment by reference to the detailed guidance set out earlier in that chapter under four broad areas of need.
Secondly, the advice on school placements in chapter 8 now makes it clear that school governing bodies cannot refuse their school being named in a child's statement, but can only argue against it. The changes that we have made to schedule 27 to the Education Act 1996 ensure that schools are always sent copies of proposed statements before decisions are made about placements. That will place LEAs, schools and parents in a better position to consider and discuss placements at an early stage.
Thirdly, the draft code of practice and the associated regulations clarify that those who give advice can comment on the type of provision they consider appropriate if they wish, but they cannot, as now, give the name of a school. The draft code makes it clear that that should not, of course, pre-empt the parent's statement of a preference for a particular school or the LEA' s eventual decision about the school, type of school or education otherwise that it considers appropriate.
Issues were also raised in the earlier debate about the advice in the draft code of practice on LEAs' duties to identify children with special educational needs who may need statements. The draft code is clear on that. Indeed, it sets out new requirements for LEAs to publish their arrangements for identifying children with special educational needs from July 2002.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman refers to LEAs taking the decision and parents
46
expressing a preference, but will he confirm that the LEA has the same obligation to take into account the preferences of the parents as it has in any case involving a parent whose child does not have special educational needs?
Mr. Timms: Certainly, the LEA needs to give great weight to the representations received from parents. I am not quite sure what specific point the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, but perhaps he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we can return to the issue later, when I may be able to help further.
Mr. Willis: The issue should be dealt with the other way round. Will the Minister confirm that applications from students with statements of special educational need who transfer, for example, from year 6 to year 7 will be given preference over those of other children who may have selected a particular school as their first choice? In other words, is there an assumption that children with statements of special educational need will be necessarily given places in their first-choice school in preference to children without statements?
Mr. Timms: Yes, that is the case, although the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was right to suggest that LEAs will need to take a decision that follows parents' preferences—but perhaps we can explore that issue further during the debate.
The draft code makes it clear that schools are expected to keep appropriate individual and whole-school records of children with special educational needs, including those with and without statements. Parents of children without statements have always been able to request assessments. Under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, schools will be able to request assessments and have their requests considered in the same six-week time scale as requests from parents. Educational psychologists regularly liaise with schools about children who receive school-based provision for their special educational needs and alert LEAs to any child who may need an assessment. In practice, LEAs can fulfil their duty without the need for additional bureaucratic burdens to be placed on schools.
From January 2003, we will collect additional data, by LEA, on children with statements who are excluded from schools, so LEAs will know about those children. From September 2002, we shall ensure that any child who is excluded from school for 15 weeks will receive suitable full-time education. We expect LEAs to ensure that children with special educational needs who are excluded from school receive provision appropriate to their special educational needs.
The current code of practice has done much to improve the identification and assessment of special educational needs, but it can be improved. Teachers and LEAs have told us that the current code is too bureaucratic, that it does not focus enough on teaching and learning and that it does not reflect recent important developments in education.
We consulted widely on a draft code of practice last year, and most people favoured the main changes that we proposed, but further concerns were raised. We listened carefully to people's views on those issues and made a number of changes to the draft. In chapter 1, we have brought together the strategic planning functions of school

47
governing bodies and local education authorities for SEN to make it easier for parents and others to know who is responsible for what.
In chapter 2, we have provided fuller guidance for LEAs on the services that they are expected to provide to parents through parent-partnership services and the authorities' arrangements for resolving disagreements with schools and parents. The guidance also sets out minimum standards.
In chapter 3, we have strengthened considerably the guidance on seeking and taking account of the views of children with SEN. Chapters 4,5 and 6 now give stronger support for the role of the SEN co-ordinator in helping governing bodies and head teachers to raise the standards of achievement for children with SEN and to recognise their need for support within the school.
The guidance on assessments in chapter 7 has been strengthened to clarify the terms on which LEAs should seek advice. It makes it clear that they should seek the views of the child, We have also enhanced chapter 8 on statements to highlight the accountability that schools and LEAs share for children with statements when funds are delegated.
The draft code of practice is intended to remove barriers to participation and learning and to raise the attainment of all children. Its key principle—that children with SEN should have their needs met—reflects the Government's view that providing effective support for such children is an essential feature of an effective school.
We support the greater emphasis in the draft code of practice on the early identification of children's SEN. Some £25 million will be available over three years to help LEAs and their early years development and child care partnerships to improve local provision for young children with SEN. A multi-agency working party will also develop guidance for health and education practitioners on a coherent approach to the early identification of need. It will provide support for children under two with special needs and for their families.
Mr. Roger Gale: The Minister mentioned a figure that was pitifully low. He is aware that many of us think that a doctrinaire attitude is taken towards the placement of children in mainstream schools. That means that they may get a worse education at a higher price. Kent county council has calculated that, as a result of these provisions, it is likely to be able to pay for the identification of needs, but not to fund the meeting of the needs themselves. How on earth will local authorities pay for that?
Mr. Timms: I shall come to the point about inclusion shortly. It is an important matter, but I am confident that the Government's approach is right.
We support the greater emphasis on early identification. With the Department of Health, we are considering the educational implications of the introduction of newborn hearing screening where we are supporting a bank of training materials, activity in the next tranche of early excellence centres and support through SEN standards funds for 2002–03 to help early intervention. As children can have SEN at different stages of their school career—not just in their early years—the guidance in the draft
48
code of practice on school-based intervention focuses less on procedures and more on improving teaching and learning.
We have reduced the number of school-based elements from three to two and cut the paperwork on individual education plans and annual reviews to free up time for teachers to concentrate on helping children to learn. That will be widely welcomed.
We have placed the voice of the child at the heart of draft code of practice. LEAs and schools are expected to seek and take account of the views and wishes of children with SEN throughout their school lives.
Partnership with parents is given a fresh impetus and greater emphasis in the draft code, which makes it clear that the parent-partnership and disagreement resolution services that LEAs are expected to provide following the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 should be of high quality. They will, of course, in no way affect the rights of parents to appeal to the SEN tribunal.
To come to the pointed raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), essential guidance on the key features of the new statutory framework for inclusion that was introduced by the 2001 Act is set out in the draft code of practice. However, we have also consulted teachers, governors, local education authorities, teacher associations, voluntary groups, parents and others on separate statutory guidance on the new arrangements for inclusion. Copies of this guidance have been placed in the Library and we aim to publish it alongside the revised SEN code of practice.
The guidance provides practical advice on how the inclusion framework interacts with other provisions within the Education Act 1996; the reasonable steps that maintained schools and LEAs should consider taking to prevent inclusion from being incompatible with the efficient education of other children, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Thanet; instances when it may not be possible to include specific children; and the safeguards that protect the interests of individual children with special educational needs.
Inclusion can certainly improve the education experience of all children, but we have always been clear that one size does not fit all and that there is a continuing and essential role for special schools in an inclusive education system. The essential principle of our inclusion policy is to safeguard the interests of all children.
The hon. Member for North Thanet asked about resources. The principle is backed with substantial resources. Last week we announced an additional £9 million in the SEN standards fund for the coming year, taking the total available funds for SEN to £91 million. That will help to support training on the code of practice and give direct practical support to inclusion. Governing bodies can also, of course, deploy resources provided through a school's budget share to support additional training. The increase in the standards funds is only one part of a major investment in education in which we will have increased overall funding per pupil by nearly £750 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04.
Hon. Members will appreciate that we have taken very seriously all the views that were put to us. We have acted on them and addressed them in the draft code of practice. I am pleased with the response to the revised proposals by those outside the House who follow such matters, and I commend the draft code to the House.
5.32 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: A casual observer looking around the House at the peak time of 5.30 in the afternoon would think that we were discussing a peripheral issue of little consequence. We are not. The code of practice directly affects thousands of the most vulnerable among us, yet there are six interested Labour Members and the Minister and no interested Liberal Democrats other than the party's spokesman. Many of my colleagues are, of course, here because we have—
Mr. Stephen Pound: Count them!
Mrs. Laing: I cannot because they are behind me, but I know that there are far more Conservative Members present than Labour Members. [Interruption.] Proportionally, there are considerably more.
As ever, it is not quantity that counts, but quality. As the Minister just admitted, it is the quality of our arguments on this extremely important subject of special educational needs that has prevailed. How could the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about consultation and listening when he has come here to do a huge U-turn?
Mr. Win Griffiths: Many Labour Members made the same points during the consultation process as those made by the Opposition and in the other place. It is the result of the total wisdom of all those who were interested that has brought about the changes.
Mrs. Laing: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman makes that point. I pay tribute to the Labour Members who were brave enough to defy their terrifying Chief Whip and stand up for what they, and we, believed was the correct approach. The Minister did not think that we were right, but he has now changed his mind. Like the hon. Gentleman, we are pleased that the Minister has presented yet another draft of the special educational needs code of practice.
Sadly, it is typical of the Government to have tried to implement policy without having thought it through. I hope that the Minister will join me in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, who have shown the Minister the error of his ways and whose arguments he has accepted. He has been saved from making the wrong decision by their arguments and persistence. He and his Government owe them a debt of gratitude.

It is typical that this Government have dogmatically stuck to their original position while ignoring the advice and views of many acknowledged experts on the subject—not Conservative Members but members of outside bodies who devote their lives to trying to improve the plight of children in need of special education, and who ought to have been listened to earlier.
Implementing this code of practice soon is not the same as implementing a code of practice six months or a year ago; more children would have benefited if it had been implemented sooner. So, moving today's motion is not the same as accepting our arguments months or, indeed, years ago—or simply leaving alone the 1994 code of practice, which was implemented by the previous Government.
50
It was hard to keep a straight face while watching the Minister. I compliment him on managing to do so while he spoke about consulting and how, from now on, the Government will consult on other matters in the area. I am sure that the Minister now realises that there is no point in consulting if, following the consultation procedure, everything that was said to the Government is totally ignored.
It is a matter of record that the previous version of the code of practice was eventually laid before the House in June after nearly a year of dithering following its publication. On 10 July, a debate took place, in which the Minister ignored the comments of my hon. Friends and some Labour Members.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has just pointed out, because of our system of deferred voting, about which I suppose I had better not make any particular criticism—hon. Members may well infer it—Labour Members were being whipped into the Lobby to vote for the code of practice at the very moment on 11 July that the Government were withdrawing the motion, just before it was to be put before the other place. We had the farce of Labour Members putting their crosses in the box, voting in favour of a code of practice that at that very moment was being withdrawn. To say that that is inconsistent is an understatement.
Mr. Damian Green: Joined-up government?
Mrs. Laing: It certainly is not joined-up government; the Minister does not know what he is doing. However, a sinner's repentance is always welcome. We welcome the withdrawal of the previous code of practice and the Minister's courage in coming before the House yet again on this subject to introduce a much better one.
It is hard to understand why the previous Secretary of State was so keen to downgrade the need for specificity in the drafting of statements. We did not understand it then, nor do we now. Many of the organisations representing children with special educational needs have long fought to have statements written clearly, without any room for misrepresentation. That is the least that parents of children with special educational needs can reasonably expect. They deserve far better than a woolly, vague statement.
We welcome the fact that the new code of practice requires that a statement contain details of hours of provision, staffing arrangements and any additional equipment that might be necessary. We supported those changes previously and we welcome them now. If only the Minister's colleagues were as brave as he has been in making a U-turn after listening to the better arguments voiced by my hon. Friends. However, I do not take credit for the changes solely for my hon. Friends; I take it for the many groups outside the place—including the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice—which argued that the Government were not doing their best for children in great need.
The Government have realised that they were wrong. We are glad to see that they are now almost right. We will not oppose the code of practice, but I feel obliged to point out that it is still not perfect. The RNIB has pointed out that the code includes neither provision for mobility

51
education for children with sight impairment, nor provisions on early detection of visual impairment. We share the RNIB's concerns: we agree that, to a child with impaired sight, mobility is as essential as language skills are to any other child. I will give way to the Minister if he would like to respond on that point.
Mr. Timms indicated dissent.
Mrs. Laing: No, the Minister does not wish to respond. Perhaps he will respond in writing later, or perhaps he will take the code of practice away again for redrafting and reintroduction at some future date—although I hasten to add that I do not encourage him to do that. We want the code of practice to pass now. Although we hope that further improvement will be made in future, we do not want to delay the implementation of the code any longer. The Government's dogmatic attitude has caused it to be delayed for long enough.
Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous to the Government in applauding the changes to the code of practice. It is all very well to will the ends, but where are the means? I understood the Minister to say that there is to be £25 million over three years for early years provision, presumably spread between approximately 100 local education authorities. Where is the beef?
Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an excellent point. The Minister spoke, as he and his colleagues always do, in vague terms about funding per child throughout the country. He repeated an announcement that was made earlier this week about additional funding—but additional to what?
It is hard to know what Ministers mean when they talk about additional funding, because we can never be sure how often they have already added in the chunk that they are talking about. The Minister explained that the money he mentioned at the end of his speech was in addition to another sum, and he admitted that it had previously been announced. I will give way to the Minister if he wants to provide clarification, but it appears that he does not want to intervene. If the money is additional, to what is it additional? How often has it been announced? Sometimes, we have difficulty interpreting the figures correctly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, because we can never be sure how many times an announcement has been made.
As I said, we welcome the return to the principle of the clear and precise wording of statements in the 1994 code of practice. We are pleased that the Minister has come to the House to restore the specificity and quantification provisions, as it was vital to do so. Nevertheless, we still doubt the Government's commitment to special educational needs.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Shame.
Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman has responded to what I am saying, but the Minister still has not. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman really thinks about the Government's commitment, he will join me in doubting it.
52
I have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Pritchard, whose daughter Claire needs special educational provision. They are just one example of many thousands of parents who are not certain about what will be done for their children, what they can rely on and what sort of plans they can make for their daughter and the rest of their family because they are not certain that they can trust the Government to do what they say they intend or hope to do for children with special educational needs.
In my constituency, I regularly meet the head teacher of Oak View school, an excellent special school. He came to see me recently and explained that, although it is well known that the teacher shortage in our Essex area is critical in schools in general, the position for special schools is very much worse. He told me that a teacher in a special school in Loughton receives approximately £1,000 a year less than a similar teacher who works in outer London, only one mile way away. It is hard enough to recruit teachers to special schools without specific provisions that make it more difficult. Here is a case where teachers are suffering discrimination in the very area—SENs—where we desperately need to recruit them.
I wrote to the Secretary of State's predecessor on 14 December 2000 about that important issue, but I have yet to receive a reply. How can anyone doubt my concern about the Government's commitment if the Secretary of State, in all these months, has not even replied to my letter?
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Nor mine.
Mrs. Laing: Nor, indeed, to my hon. Friend's letter. If the Secretary of State has not even responded to a simple question about salaries, how can the Minister doubt why I should be concerned about his commitment and that of his Government to special educational needs?
Does the Minister know just how many special schools throughout the country are currently under threat of closure? Oak View school in my constituency is under threat of closure because of funding problems and the enormous bureaucracy heaped on it. How many more schools are in a similar position? I will happily give way to the Minister if he wants to respond. I understand why he does not want to respond when I ask how many schools—perhaps he does not have that information at his fingertips—but will he tell the House whether he has any plans for stopping special schools closing? He clearly does not want to respond. I understand that. I take it to mean that he has no plans.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On special needs schools, Brook Farm school in my constituency closed, despite a year's stay of execution following many appeals and representations to the former Minister. Its closure has added to the deep anxiety felt by parents of children who require special needs education. Not only have school places gone, necessitating longer journeys, but the introduction of the initial code caused great anxiety about certainty and quantification, particularly in respect of respite opportunities. For at least a year, and in my constituency for two years, parents and children have lived in a state of deep and unnecessary anxiety, because the situation was not handled by Government in a timely and more responsible manner.
Mrs. Laing: As usual, my hon. Friend is correct. Children in need of special education provision are not

53
statistics. They are not numbers on a pie chart. They are individual people who are part of a family. Their parents have to plan not only for the children who are in need of special education provision, but for other children in the family. That is why they need to know the precise quantification of care that is to be provided, and why they need certainty for the future.
The Government have not provided certainty. The Minister's presence in the House today to introduce a different code of practice from the one introduced only four months ago shows clearly that certainty has not been provided by the Government. It is not surprising that parents of children who attended the school described by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) are more than concerned. Of course they do not trust what the Government say, because the Government change their mind this way and that. If a Government can change their mind right in the middle of a vote that is still taking place on an order laid before the House, they can change their mind any time and in any way.
If the Minister wants to show real commitment to special education needs, we will have to be convinced that he and his colleagues intend to provide the right funding for their plans, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said. They will have to convince us that their plans are consistent and that they will do what they say they will do.
In this area more than any other—there are many, many others in which the Government say one thing and do another—we have a striking example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. On this occasion, we are pleased that they are doing what they said they would not do, as they are now doing the right thing. The Minister gestures as if he is confused by what I am saying. I am not confused. The people who are confused are the parents of children who require special educational provision. They are among the most vulnerable in our society. They should not be confused. They should be able to depend on the Government's word, and they should know that if the Minister says something in the House, he means it.
Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. She is making a powerful point. Our welcome for the Government's U-turn on the code does not diminish the unnecessary and untimely suffering and deep concern caused to families by the terms of the original draft order. They immediately recognised that it would throw into great uncertainty the care that they had already arranged. There was a deep suspicion that that was being done on financial grounds, rather than being motivated by concern for children and their needs.
Mrs. Laing: Once again, my hon. Friend is correct. Those parents have had more than a year of anxiety, not knowing what would happen to their children, what the Government would do, or whether the Government would listen to their concerns, as expressed by organisations such as the RNIB and IPSEA. At first, the Government did not listen, but now they have listened, at least in part. Parents have nothing on which to rely. That is wrong. Their children are among the most vulnerable people in our society and they deserve better.
We accept the order. I am not calling on my hon. Friends to oppose it, but we hope that it will not be withdrawn again tomorrow.
5.56 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: It was incredibly sad to hear the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) use her first major contribution at the Dispatch Box to deliver a party political attack on the Government on an issue of such importance and sensitivity. The fact that she had nothing whatever to say about some of the core issues relating to the code demonstrates the lack of integrity of an Opposition who have clearly not come to grips with the fact that unless—
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: I will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is no doubt that, in respect of schools, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 was an important landmark on the journey towards a more inclusive society. The work of previous Conservative Governments on the matter dates back to the Education Act 1981—the first major education Act which introduced statements. Today's performance does a disservice to past Secretaries of State who did an enormous amount to establish inclusive education in our schools. Baroness Blatch needs a special mention for the work that she has done on the issue, together with my hon. Friends in both Houses.
This morning, I accepted a cheque, presented by Abbey National, on behalf of Barnados, which operates a restaurant employing young adults with learning disabilities in Harrogate. Virtually half of the young trainees who work in that commercial restaurant have Down's syndrome. When I met them this morning, I was reminded of the comment made by Lord Rix in another place when the code of practice was debated. He mentioned that he had just spent a wonderful day with his grandson, who is a Down's syndrome child. Lord Rix, peers like him and others who have fought for an inclusive society will have their dreams brought one stage nearer. We hope that in years to come, Lord Rix's grandson will enjoy the fruits of the code of practice, if the Government implement it in its entirety.
We welcome the U-turn by the Government, if that is what it is. There was a vicious attack on the Government in the House, and there would have been a similar attack in another place, over the code of practice that failed to include the quantity of resources attached to statements.
When one looks back to 1981 and to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, one sees that the great deficiency in special needs provision in schools was the quantifying of statements. Previous Governments did not achieve that. I worked in schools that pioneered inclusive education for children with physical difficulties, sensory impairments and severe learning difficulties. As a headmaster, I never had sufficient resources to deliver what parents, children and teachers needed. We should seek to move a stage further towards delivering that. I do not criticise previous Governments, who made noble efforts in that direction, but we must keep that constantly in mind.
The code of practice does many good things. It is absolutely right to reduce from five to three the steps to be taken before statements are issued. I agree that there should be two steps for schools, and most schools will welcome more simplicity in respect of record keeping. However, Liberal Democrats particularly welcome placing parents at the heart of this issue and establishing, through local education authorities, proper parent panels and discussion forums to ensure that problems do not arise in the schools but are sorted out beforehand.

55
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made two interventions with which I absolutely agreed. The issue of parents is crucial. LEAs do not have sufficient resources to do what they are expected to do and they are now being given new responsibilities. How are they supposed to set up the new organisations under paragraph 2:17 and run them efficiently unless they have additional resources?
Mr. Gale: As the hon. Gentleman has come thus far with me, perhaps he would come a little further. Does he agree that, given that we shall lose good special schools because of the doctrinaire approach that will force children into mainstream education, that mainstream education and support will be even more expensive, so we shall need even more resources?
Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to that point and meet him some of the way, but not all the way. I disagree with his premise that we shall see the end of special schools. The hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of integrity in this area, will accept that the number of special schools that have closed in the past 10 years is extremely small. Virtually the same number of children are in special schools now as when he was a junior Minister in a previous Government. It is wrong to say that special schools are closing all the time.
Let me deal with the key issue of resources. The Minister rightly said—indeed, the code of practice says so—that the whole issue of inclusion depends on schools themselves being inclusive. Making a school inclusive is a costly business. It is not simply a matter of providing resources for an individual child, or a few children, with special needs. Paragraph 6:2 of the code of practice clearly states:
"All teachers are teachers of pupils with special educational needs."
If inclusion is to work, it cannot be done on the cheap; it must be done with sufficient resources to enable schools to work as a community.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest was correct to say that the Government constantly reannounce funds. I have just looked at the £91 million that the Government have aggregated, which is about £4,000 per school. It is absolute nonsense to expect schools to put in place an inclusive SEN policy with that sum. The reason why so many teachers, heads and governors are fed up to the back teeth with an inclusion policy without the necessary resources is that, to deal with children with behavioural difficulties—an increasing number have severe behavioural difficulties—they need to train the whole staff. That is of paramount importance.
A child who is partially sighted or has a severe hearing disability cannot simply be put into a class where a particular teacher or SEN co-ordinator has been trained; the whole staff need training in managing such children. That cannot be done on £4,000 per school. It needs a significant investment in training. Will the Minister press the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State to recognise that special education provision is at a crucial point? The code of practice can make a real difference, but we must have the necessary resources.
56
Sadly, the code of practice scarcely mentions special schools, which are important. It is as if they simply offer a different route in meeting special educational needs. They do not. Special schools provide not just an alternative route but must be at the very centre in dealing with special needs children. Unless we regard special schools as centres of excellence, and resource and research centres, we shall make no progress. I hope that the Minister will encourage his colleagues to do that.
The whole House is delighted that the Government changed their tune on quantifiable provision in paragraphs 8:35 to 8:39 of the code of practice. We do not want blanket policies, but LEAs were often forced to have blanket policies because they had meagre resources to apply to special needs. We want those policies to be specific, clear and detailed and we welcome the Minister's commitment in that respect, but Liberal Democrats do not accept that provision should "normally" be quantified, as stated in paragraph 8:37 of the code. I challenged the Minister to give an example and, to be fair to him, he gave the example of a visually impaired child whose needs would change. That is a cop-out. Provision should not normally be quantified; it should always be quantified. There is no reason whatever why a statement could not be altered to meet different needs during the year. In that way, the child and his needs, rather than the resource implications, would be central. I hope that the Minister will accept that and put in place ways of allowing those concerned to look carefully at statements that are not quantified under the code of practice.
Will the Minister say in his summing up whether the new statements that are quantified will then be mandatory on the school and the LEA? If they are not, they are not worth the paper on which they are written. That is the crux of this debate. Once a statement is made that a child with speech problems, for instance, must have four hours' provision a week, who is liable if that is not delivered? Is it the school, the LEA or the Government?
Where a child with a statement of special needs moves into the independent sector, as will increasingly happen as parents choose the provision for their child, do the resources that go with that provision move into the private sector with the child, or must the private sector seek those resources separately?
There is a point of principle here, and that is the child. The parents may decide that they want a particular type of provision for their child, such as very small classes, which cannot be provided by the LEA. Given the additional resources needed to meet their statement, will that provision continue to be met in that area?
We welcome the issue of identification. The code of practice goes a long way towards saying at early years, primary and secondary stages which conditions should apply for identification. That is a huge leap forward in thinking. I also welcome the announcement of hearing screening for newborns. The hon. Member for Epping Forest referred to screening carried out by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. To have it written into the code that those two tests will be given to children at an early age will make a huge difference.
Paragraph 1:29 of the code of practice refers to SEN co-ordinators in early years settings. In my constituency and many others, particularly rural ones, some of the settings are very small because of the size of the village. Indeed, many children are looked after by child minders.

57
It is nonsense to think that a child minder would employ a SENCO, and I know that the Minister does not intend that to happen. The code says that they can join together and employ a SENCO. They cannot—most child minders and early years settings work at a loss. They do it because it is part of social giving in most communities. They are embarrassed even taking the minimum wage from parents. Will the Minister consider whether the early years and child care partnerships could be obliged to employ SENCOs to deal with small settings and child care placements? In that way, a professional person would be employed by the local education authority whose job it was to ensure that special needs provision was delivered at a local child-based level across all the early years settings. That is a legitimate job for the LEA. If the Minister wants to privatise the service and give it to someone else, that is his decision. However, this issue needs to be considered.
The other area of weakness is special groups; the issue of excluded children is mentioned. However, a child is seven times more likely to be excluded from school if he has a statement of special needs than if he is within any other category. It is a huge problem. On the whole, children with behavioural difficulties such as autism and dyspraxia are the most affected. We must regard them as a special group. Along with local authorities and school settings, we must ensure that the infrastructure is in place to deal specifically with children who have behavioural difficulties. Travellers' children often have special needs that need to he met in a much more entrepreneurial way, and the same is true of immigrant children, particularly children of asylum seekers.
We welcome much in the code of practice, such as the changes with regard to naming a specific school. We are delighted that schools cannot refuse to take children simply because they have special needs. That was not right, and it is good to see a change of heart. It is good, too, that there will be more discussions about the placement of a child between the LEA, parents and other professionals. However, at the heart of the code is what happens in school and the people who organise and work with children with special needs, particularly SENCOs. Paragraphs 5:33 and 6:36 make it clear that SENCOs should have more time. All Members who have asked a SENCO, "Do you have enough time to do the job?" will know that the answer is no. In some schools, the amount of time SENCOs have is derisory. I hope that the Minister will instruct Ofsted to ensure that when it inspects a school, those who provide the infrastructure to deliver special education needs have the time to do it. We have gone a long way in training SENCOs and professionalising the special needs provision, and we need to do it even more.
There are two ways in which we could help schools immediately. First, there could be standard pro formas for individual education plans. The idea that all schools should devise their own is nonsense. I hope that model IEPs could be put on the internet or the website of the Department for Education and Skills. We should encourage such provision. Secondly, to enable schools, particularly large ones, to track all children with special needs—not just those with statements—needs sophisticated software. The Government can commission that on behalf of our schools.
58
This is a major step forward. If the code of practice can have the necessary resources, the Government will go down in history as having taken a quantum leap for youngsters who are born without the advantages that many of us have.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Front-Bench speeches have taken 66 minutes out of the 90 available, leaving very little time for Back Benchers. I hope that those hon. Members will be mindful of each other's needs if all are to make a contribution.
6.17 pm
John McDonnell: I was one of the Members who voted against the Government last time, solely on the basis of the wording of paragraph 8:37. Admittedly, it was one of the shortest rebellions in parliamentary history when it was withdrawn within two hours—a form of "codus interruptus", I suppose.
I was concerned about quantification, and I remain anxious about the ability of local authorities to exert flexibility. The Minister's example was not reassuring because I should have thought that the change in circumstances would have been picked up at the annual review. The system proposed already covers that flexibility. However, I am open to persuasion.
When the Minister replies, it would be worth while if he made an explicit statement that could be used by people in defending their rights if there were any possibility of flexibility being abused by local authorities. He could say that flexibility should not be used as a device for avoiding clarity of quantification of a pupil's needs and that any attempt to use it as such would be contrary to the spirit of the guidance.
How will the Minister monitor the use of the flexibility? We have been assured that provision should normally be quantified, but I hope that the flexibility will be used only in very rare and exceptional cases, and that a report would be made to the House if it were believed that an abuse had occurred. That would require a monitoring system.
6.19 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the chance to ask the Minister about the number of statemented children in Herefordshire. The current figure is 4 per cent. and I believe that it is due to be cut to 2 per cent. That is of particular concern to me because Wigmore primary school in my constituency has a special educational class with 12 places. It received a gold award from Ofsted for its excellent special educational needs teaching. Since then, I have been told that the number of places is due to be cut to six. That is awkward, because there are seven statemented children in the school. One full-time staff member is expected to go part-time. In a city that is understandable, but in a rural area close to the Welsh border, it is not practical. It means that that person will lose half their salary.
The extra pupil may or may not be able to fit into the school, and the family are deeply concerned. Moreover, we cannot know how many statemented pupils there will be next year or, indeed, in the year after that, which is worrying. It seems that children with special educational needs are being forced into pigeonholes to suit policy enforced by the local education authority. Although the

59
matter is still under consultation, the staff in question seem to believe that most of the decisions have already been made.
I hope that the Minister will consider the problem in rural areas, where flexibility does not exist. I also hope that in a school whose excellence has been identified and praised by Ofsted, the present position will be preserved. I am worried by paragraph 1:14, which states that LEAs must
"publish their general arrangements, including any plans setting out objectives, targets and timescales covering local arrangements for"—
this is the last requirement in the paragraph, and I hope that the House will forgive the grammar, for which I am not responsible—
"explaining that element of provision for children with SEN (but without statements) which the LEA expects normally to be met from maintained schools' budget shares and that element of such provision that the authority expects normally to be met from funds which it holds centrally."
If the LEA explains that it cannot meet those special requirements because it has no funds, what will happen to children with special educational needs?
6.21 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I first met a child suffering from autism during my second term as a probationary teacher. He had a learning support assistant and was in the fourth form, as we called it then.
I had no idea what autism was; I was never told. I knew nothing about the child's needs. He was in, shall I say, a "lower order" class, which for a probationary teacher was not always the easiest environment in which to maintain discipline. It must also have been very difficult for him. Fortunately, that was a long time ago and things have moved on—partly, at least, thanks to my noble Friend Lady Young, who introduced and worked hard on provisions for pupils with SEN following the Warnock report.
The Government's amendment to the code of practice is welcome—I say that unconditionally—but much work remains to be done. Local authorities must be persuaded to recognise and assist the parents of pupils with SEN. I owe a lot to Claire Franklin—one of the parents of autistic pupils on the Isle of Wight who contributes much to supporting others in the same position—and to Jimmy Spence, a former Isle of Wight councillor, who brought the issue to my attention two or three years ago. I also owe a lot to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who has done much work for youngsters with autism spectrum disorders. She kindly visited the island, and met Claire and Jimmy and many other mothers and fathers of pupils with special needs.
It is not enough to write things down. It is essential for local authorities, whatever their political complexion, to show a commitment—a genuine determination—to meet the requirements of SEN pupils. Let me a give a few examples. In doing so, I do not criticise my local authority particularly, nor do I make a political point.
Mothers—it usually is mothers—with other children to look after may have to spend hours attending, say, a council meeting before they can even ask, in public question time, a question that frustration has driven them
60
to go and ask, let alone receive an answer. If they get an answer, it will be read out rather less effectively than things are read out by the Minister. If they must then correspond at length with the local authority and receive no answers, they are not being given the treatment and support that they deserve from the authority.
Such people may subsequently have to go to tribunals and seek support from IPSEA, the National Autistic Society or other outside organisations, in the face of a local authority funded from the public purse—whether or not it considers itself to be fully funded—that may employ solicitors. Many authorities employ solicitors to challenge parents at tribunals, although I am pleased to say that Isle of Wight council does not. If that happens, we are not giving parents the recognition and justice that they seek and need for their children.
I shall concentrate on autism spectrum disorders, but local authorities simply do not seem to understand a huge number of issues. For example, such children cannot travel on a bus unaccompanied because they might get off and wander away—and, if they wander away between leaving home in the morning and arriving at school, who would be responsible? The same applies when children are on the way home. If conditions on the bus are not perfect for children with challenging needs such as autism—and they seldom are—such children will become upset, and be more likely to wander. If conditions in the school playground, let alone the classroom, are not perfect, children may go AWOL and no one may notice until the beginning of the next lesson or, in some cases, the one after that.
Such things are not necessarily written down in statements. A local education authority may make a school responsible for providing a learning support assistant, but the school may not recognise that an autistic child needs constant encouragement from a figure whom he or she recognises. It is no good for such a child to have half an hour from Mrs. X in the morning and three hours from Mrs. Y in the afternoon. It is no good writing things down in a statement if the local authority or the school—or, in some instances, the health authority—cannot deliver. For instance, speech and language therapy are all too often specified in statements and then treated more as hope than expectation because the health service cannot provide them.
I echo the request of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and ask the Minister to make clear who is legally liable. Is it the school, the LEA, the Government or, as I fear, no one? Who is liable if what is demanded in a statement is not provided, month after month?
There are a number of issues relating to respite care, which I will not go into now, but there is also the issue of social services' support for parents of pupils with autism disorders, and for the youngsters themselves. Parents' preferences should be recognised. I thank the Minister for his reply to my earlier intervention. My point was that when a statement does not name a particular school, does the fact that a child has been statemented prevent the LEA from having to recognise and, wherever practicable, give effect to, the parents' preference for placement in a particular LEA school? I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, but I am talking about cases in which the school has not been named. Are parents in such cases given genuine opportunities to consider independent schools, or are their

61
hands tied behind their backs? Is it sometimes implied that considering an independent school implies a lack of faith in the maintained system, which does not deserve to be taken into account by the LEA?
When children transfer from school to school—we have a three-tier system on the island, so there are two transfers for every child—is the review of their needs undertaken in good time not only for the transfer, but for parents to express a preference? If it is not undertaken in the September before transfer, the parent will not be able to express one.
There is great need for those matters to be understood by local authorities and schools. That is why I so strongly support maintenance of the existing special school provision. I pay tribute to Medina House school and Watergate school, in Newport, and to St. Catherine's, which is an independent school in Ventnor, all of which very effectively serve pupils with special educational needs.
The Minister mentioned, and I welcome, work on the early identification of need. However, it is no good identifying need if it then takes three years to create a statement. I hope that all local authorities and all those who cater for pupils with special needs will recognise the urgency of providing them with statements as quickly and effectively as possible, and with not only quantified measures—although I welcome those—but qualitative ones. Parents see the need for that, but we must all see it if those children are to receive the education that they deserve.
6.31 pm
Mr. Timms: I listened with great interest to many of the points that have been made and shall attempt to respond to as many as I can in the few minutes available.
Although I know that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is new to her Front-Bench role, I am sorry that she chose to attempt to score some party points. I do not think that that approach will commend itself to people of all parties or of none who follow the debate. Her attempt was ill-judged. I am glad, however, that some serious points were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I shall try to respond to them.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned a U-turn. In closing our debate in July, I emphasised that I would reflect on the points that had been made on quantification. We have made changes accordingly. I should have thought that she would welcome them, as she sort of did. Nevertheless, we have retained in this draft code almost all the advice that was included in the June draft.
Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I shall do so only briefly as I do not have much time to reply to the other points that have been made.
Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to clarify that I most certainly welcome the proposals and congratulate him on his courage in coming back to the House and making them.
Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention.
62
I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, and I should like particularly to join in his tribute to Lord Rix. The hon. Gentleman has long followed the issue, and he has made a very substantial contribution not only in relation to education but to other aspects of the Government's work on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members legitimately expressed concerns about funding for inclusion. I emphasise that we have made great progress on that front in recent years. In 1996–97, for example, funding for the schools access initiative, which is intended to improve accessibility for people with disabilities to mainstream schools, amounted to £10 million; this year, it amounts to £50 million; next year, it will increase to £70 million, and the year after to £100 million. The sums for investment in improving access to mainstream schools have increased very substantially. Furthermore, in 1996–97, the special educational needs element of the standards fund was £24 million; this year, it is £82 million.
We are seeing unprecedented increases in spending on education not only this year, but next year and the year after. Moreover, a substantial chunk of those extra resources will be spent on meeting concerns that have been expressed in this debate. The total size of the inclusion block in the current financial year is £330 million, much of which is delegated to schools. So, although it is right to express concerns about resources in our debate, I emphasise that we have made great progress and that more progress will be made next year and the year after.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was also concerned about funding for parent partnership and disagreement resolution services. We envision that those duties on local education authorities will, as intended, come into force on 1 January. In the current financial year, LEAs have been able to use their standards fund allocation for SEN to establish those services in advance of the legal obligation to do so. From next financial year, however, as they will be a statutory duty, funding will be provided using the usual SSA system. Given the increase that LEAs will receive next year, we hope that those duties will be carried out effectively.
Various hon. Members expressed concerns about special schools. I emphasise that inclusion does not amount to a drive to close special schools. I thought that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made that point well. There will of course continue to be changes to local provision to reflect local circumstances. Those are decisions that will be made locally either by local school organisation committees or by the adjudicator, as has always been the case. However, as we made clear in the debates on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, we do not envisage that the size of the special school sector will change dramatically. The latest figures on pupil numbers support that belief. Indeed, 42 special schools have opened since May 1997. I therefore think that there is some confusion on that issue.
Mrs. Laing: What plans do the Government have to stop the closure of special schools that are under threat? Does he know how many are under threat of closure?
Mr. Timms: As I said, those are matters for local decision. There will undoubtedly have to be changes in

63
some areas in response to local circumstances, just as there has been a need for new schools to be opened. Indeed, some new schools have opened.
It is not true either that the code is written only for mainstream schools. It provides guidance for all maintained schools, including maintained special schools. We have encouraged all special schools to become centres of excellence, as we were urged to do in this debate. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to the example of Norfolk Park school, in Sheffield, which is highlighted in the inclusion guidance as a very good example of what he was calling for and of what we are starting to see.
The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) asked about the status of statements and whether they are mandatory. The answer is that they are mandatory. If a statement is not delivered, the LEA is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the provision in a statement is made. I hope that that makes the position very clear.
Mr. Chris Pond: That may not apply to under-fives. One of my younger constituents, Francesca Norman, is entitled to five sessions per week but is being provided with only three by Kent county council. Can my hon. Friend give any hope to the parents of under-fives that their children will have the same entitlement as other children?
Mr. Timms: Certainly the concern about the early identification of special educational needs is an increasingly important theme. Consequently, we have announced extra funding to help LEAs in their early years development and child care partnerships to improve local provision for young children, and we have a working party joining different agencies together to develop guidance for health and education practitioners on a coherent approach to the early identification of needs and the provision of support. I certainly should expect my hon. Friend's constituent and many other people to start to benefit from that. In response to his specific question, the code does apply to under-fives.
Mr. Gale: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I cannot give way, given the late stage of the debate. I was asked what we were doing about special educational needs co-ordinators—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.

Liaison Committee
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion on the Liaison Committee, I should announce that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
6.40 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That,
(1) With effect for the current Parliament, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of Select Committees), the Chairman for the time being of each of the Select Committees listed in paragraph (2) below shall be a member of the Liaison Committee:
(2) The Committees to which paragraph (1) above applies are:

Accommodation and Works

Administration

Broadcasting

Catering

Culture, Media and Sport

Defence

Deregulation and Regulatory Reform

Education and Skills

Environmental Audit

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

European Scrutiny

Finance and Services

Foreign Affairs

Health

Home Affairs

Joint Committee on Human Rights (the Chairman being a Member of this House)

Information

International Development

Northern Ireland Affairs

Procedure

Public Accounts

Public Administration

Science and Technology

Scottish Affairs

Selection

Standards and Privileges

Statutory Instruments

Trade and Industry

Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Treasury

Welsh Affairs

Work and Pensions; and

(3) Mr. Alan Williams shall also be a Member of the Liaison Committee.
I need not detain the House for long because I imagine—I hope not wrongly—that it is common ground across the House that we want the Liaison Committee set up, and that is the purpose of the motion. Only a couple of weeks ago, I received a letter signed by many of the Chairs of the new Select Committees urging us to make progress in setting up the Liaison Committee. I responded to that in the motion that is before the House.
For myself, I did not need urging to set up the Liaison Committee. I am keen to see it in existence soon. One of the reasons for that is that the Modernisation Committee is making good progress towards a report to the House on Select Committees and their valuable role in scrutiny. Obviously, we cannot hope to complete that report until we have a Liaison Committee from which we can take evidence on our proposals.
Perhaps I can say a couple of words about the terms of the motion. First, the motion takes the form of listing the 32 Select Committees that are relevant to the Liaison Committee and stating that the Chairs of those Select Committees will be members of the Liaison Committee.
Mr. Eric Forth: For the sake of complete accuracy, will the Leader of the House confirm that, happily, the motion refers to
"the Chairman for the time being of each of the Select Committees"?
Would he perhaps like to use the correct wording instead of the nonsense that he has just used?
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Nonsense?
Mr. Robin Cook: As my hon. Friend demonstrates, there are different views on whether it is I or the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who is being nonsensical on this matter. It is a matter of fact that the Standing Orders refer to Chairmen, and that is why the motion before the House uses that term. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will use a gender-neutral term that I have been using for several years, on the whole without causing the offence that it has caused the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: It caused derision.
Mr. Cook: Given the choice between offending some of my hon. Friends who are members of another gender and causing offence to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no contest; it has to be the right hon. Gentleman whom I offend.
To return to the matter of substance, the motion takes a different form in the sense that it lists the Chairs, rather than the names of individuals. Had I tabled a motion that listed those eligible by name, there would have been further delay because two Select Committee do not yet exist, so I do not yet have the names of their Chairs. Had we proceeded differently, we would have had to find time to amend the motion as the Chairs changed. We had to amend the 1997 motion four times during the Session because of changes in personnel. The particular format that we have tonight does not require any such change. If there are changes in the Chairs of Select Committees, there will automatically be changes in the Liaison Committee without our having to trouble the House further.
The motion proposes to include in the membership of the Liaison Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). There is a precedent for appointing a senior Member to the Liaison Committee. In 1992, the previous Administration appointed Sir Terence Higgins to the Liaison Committee. So successful was that precedent that, at the end of the Parliament, and before the 1997 general election, the Liaison Committee recommended that, in future, it should include a senior Member.
66
I do not think that there is any dispute on either side of the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West is a senior Member. He has given distinguished service to the House and to its senior Committees. He is a longstanding member of the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and he also served on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. He has a wealth of experience of the proceedings of the House and the work of its Committees. It is right that that experience should be available to the Liaison Committee to be drawn on in whatever way it wishes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have indicated that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment to the motion. I have had no overtures about the amendment, which is perfectly respectable; there is no reason why any overtures should be made to me on the completion of the tabling of an amendment. However, in the circumstances, I will want to hear the case for the amendment before I respond to it.
I hope that the House will not be sidetracked from the central issue. We need this motion to set up the Liaison Committee. We moved quickly after the general election to set up the Select Committees; indeed, they were set up in record time. Tonight's motion maintains that momentum.
Mr. David Heath: The Leader of the House said that he was listing the Committees by name because two had yet to be set up. Given that he has just described the welcome momentum towards setting up the Committees, can he explain why the Committee on Science and Technology has yet to be appointed?
Mr. Cook: The sole reason is that we have been looking for nominations to make sure that we have full membership. I hope that, in the course of this week, we may be able to take that forward. I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that we will make progress as soon as we can because I want a full slate of Select Committees.
As I said, the motion is necessary if we are to have the Liaison Committee. We are all agreed that we need the Liaison Committee and we all want the Committee to be set up. I hope that the House will agree to the motion tonight.
6.46 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I very much welcome the motion and join the Leader of the House in recognising the vital role that the Liaison Committee plays in the proceedings of the House. I accept completely the point—an important one for the smooth running of our affairs—that the motion should be worded as it is, referring to Chairmen of Select Committees, both departmental and domestic, rather than named individuals, because that eases our procedures in an acceptable way.
There is a paradox in the motion, but it emphasises that the Liaison Committee traditionally has been composed of the Chairmen of the Select Committees, departmental and domestic. That is well understood by members of the House, and those who wish to envisage a greater role for the Liaison Committee are content with that. That much is common ground.

67
Having said that, neither my colleagues nor I have any difficulty with the suggestion that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) be made a member of the Liaison Committee, for the reasons that the Leader of the House has given. The right hon. Gentleman, whom I know well and respect greatly, brings to the House, and will bring to the Committee, experience and wisdom that are well appreciated. However, were the right hon. Gentleman to be thought eligible to be the Chairman of the Liaison Committee—I should have thought that that was a distinct possibility—it would raise the question whether such a position should be filled by a Government or an Opposition Back Bencher.
It may be that, in the wider consideration of the role of the Liaison Committee and of Select Committees generally, that sort of issue may be pondered in the future. I am not saying that it will necessarily affect immediate decisions, and I am not in any way seeking to interfere with or influence the decisions of the Liaison Committee. However, something that has bothered me for some time about the role of Select Committees is that they have tended historically to be dominated by Government Members. That is something to which the House may wish to return at some stage.
Having said that, I must confess that I am less happy with the idea contained within the amendment; that we start appointing other additional members to the Liaison Committee, apparently on an ad hominem basis. Whatever the virtues of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)—I have no doubt that they are many—I cannot avoid stating a fact into which I hope hon. Members will not read too much. The extent to which the right hon. Member for Swansea, West has enormous experience and knowledge of this House is clear; he has been a Government Minister and has served with great distinction on Select Committees. The same can hardly be said of the hon. Gentleman referred to in the amendment. Like the Leader of the House, I am waiting with bated breath to hear from Liberal Democrat Members the reasons for the amendment and why they believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam would add lustre to the Liaison Committee. I remain to be convinced about that.
I may take some convincing. We have been on solid ground until now in acknowledging that the Liaison Committee will consist of Select Committee Chairmen and, for the reasons given, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. However, if we create a precedent by adding other members willy nilly we could be at the top of the legendary slippery slope or at the thin end of the legendary wedge. That could lead us in directions that none of us can foresee. I fear that the influence and standing of the Liaison Committee could thus be diluted. I put it no more strongly than that.
I welcome the motion and its reference to Chairmen rather than named hon. Members. I am content with the suggested addition of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, but I have yet to be convinced about any other changes to the traditional shape and structure of the Committee.
6.51 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph (3), leave out
"shall also he a Member"
and insert
"and Mr. Richard Allan shall also he Members".

I join hon. Members in welcoming the fact that we are making progress on appointing members of the Liaison Committee. However, perhaps the Leader of the House would like to comment on the time scale. It is curious that we are examining the role of the Liaison Committee in our discussions in the Modernisation Committee, yet we are appointing the members of the former without completing our review. That seems to be the way we tend to do things in Parliament: we appoint people before deciding the role that they should play.
The Committee is large and in due course we shall probably consider whether the departmental Select Committees are properly represented when they are diluted to some extent by Domestic Committees.
I welcome the flexibility that is implicit in the nomination of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I endorse the words of the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the capacity and skills that he will bring to the Committee. He has considerable experience; I have served with him on Select Committees and I respect his judgment.
However, the precedent to which the Leader of the House referred is not precise. Sir Terence Higgins had previously been a Chairman; he returned to the Liaison Committee because of the need for continuity. A good case was made at the time and his appointment was worth while. However, that precedent does not apply in the case that we are considering. Although I greatly admire the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, I have heard the suspicion expressed in Labour circles that his appointment is a consolation prize for not getting something else. That is unfortunate, and I hope that the Leader of the House will dispel that rumour.
Mr. John McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman is not exactly right. Sir Terence was Chairman of a Special Select Committee that was set up for one Parliament and died with it.
Mr. Tyler: That underlines my point that Sir Terence's special skills from previous experience were believed to be desirable.
There are two good reasons for the amendment, which is not the thin end of a slippery slope, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst appeared to suggest. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) chaired the Information Committee with distinction and special expertise in the previous Parliament. Continuity of the work of that Committee affects every aspect of the work of the House. His expertise and experience recommended him as a good addition to the Liaison Committee.
Mr. Forth: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is revealing one of his reasons for tabling the amendment. However, the knowledge and expertise of the current Chairman of the Information Committee is legendary, and

69
he will be a member of the Liaison Committee. Why do we need two e-people on the Committee? Is not one expert enough?
Mr. Tyler: That is a matter for the House. I share the view of those who are more expert than the right hon. Gentleman in such matters. He declares himself a philistine and has frequently expressed doubts about whether we should spend any time or resources on the e-revolution.
There is a better precedent for the inclusion of my hon. Friend rather than for the inclusion of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West on the Committee—the need for continuity. My hon. Friend served not only on the Information Committee but on House Committees that dealt with such matters.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the inclusion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on the Committee is justified by his previous chairmanship of a Select Committee and the need for continuity. Is the hon. Gentleman implying that every former Select Committee chairman would qualify on the same ground? How would he manage the size of the Committee?
Mr. Tyler: The House will have to decide the matter. Failure to consult about additional members of the Liaison Committee has caused anxiety about the criteria on the basis of which they can be included. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) nods. When we heard that the reason for the inclusion of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West was the precedent of Sir Terence Higgins, we believed that we had a good case for proposing my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam.
However, we have a second good reason. As the Leader of the House said, the Liaison Committee will have 32 members. The arithmetic of the House should be used as a guide to ensure a proper balance on every Committee. There is only one Liberal Democrat Member on the Liaison Committee because of a neat little carve-up between the Whips Offices of the Conservative and Labour parties and the removal of one of our Chairmen from a Committee.
To enable the House to do what it must do under Standing Orders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has said, we should maintain proportionality and ensure continuity of experience, thus following the precedent created by Sir Terence Higgins.
6.58 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) gave some convoluted reasoning for adding another Liberal Democrat to the Committee. He ultimately reached the real reason for the amendment—to bump up the number of Liberal Democrats on Select Committees. The Liberal Democrats are already over-represented on. Select Committees, whereas the minority parties, or the smaller parties, as I would describe them, are under-represented.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Other parties.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right; the other parties are under-represented on Select Committees. I am
70
not making a pitch for a member of Plaid Cymru or the Scottish National party or any other party to serve on the Committee. However, if it grows much larger, we shall certainly be entitled to a member on it.
In the discussions that take place in the dark or through the usual channels, the Liberal Democrats supposedly represent the interests of the other parties. On this occasion, and some others, that has not happened. We were not consulted—
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Neither were we.
Mr. Thomas: Indeed, but we were not consulted about whether we would wish to put forward an alternative name for the Liaison Committee.
The Committee should be set up speedily, because it is important for the modernisation of the House. We must accept, however, that a precedent—small though it is—has been set by the appointment of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), however undoubted his virtues. This debate should open the eyes of all hon. Members to the reality of the way in which Select Committee membership is allocated; who is chosen by the byzantine means of the Committee of Selection; and who speaks up for whom in the selection of members and of the Chairs who then form the Liaison Committee. Those procedures should be brought into the open and changed so that all Members, from all parties, feel that they have a share and a stake in the House's work.
7.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, and I have made similar points behind the scenes since I became the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. The minority parties and the Liberal Democrats face considerable difficulties because of the method by which the places on Select Committees are decided. Those are on top of the difficulties that all hon. Members perceive when the nominations reach the Committee of Selection. The House instructed the Modernisation Committee to make proposals to put that right and I hope that it will soon do so, because the present situation imposes an unfair burden on those who have to adjudicate such matters—and on this occasion and in relation to Select Committees, that is me.
The minority parties are also disadvantaged, because they are not directly represented on the Committee of Selection. I have made that point explicitly on every occasion when it has been necessary. All I can say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion is that his party is not treated unfairly in mathematical terms. The dispute between his party and the Liberal Democrats is not the mathematics, but the actual selection of individual Select Committee memberships. Unavoidably, political choices have to be made under the current mechanism. I agree with his concerns about the present system and I want the House to reform it, but the amendment attempts to address a different fault in the system.
When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was taken off the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the House was able to insist that the Government reconsider the decision. The hon. Lady was put back on the Committee,

71
and the decision was made through the Committee of Selection, which is answerable to the House. However, the decision on which party should offer a Chairman for a Select Committee is not the responsibility of the Committee of Selection, and it cannot be recalled or rectified by the House. Whatever problems were caused by the Committee's decision in June, the issue today is currently beyond the reach of even the Committee, never mind the whole House.
The Liaison Committee has 32 members and the Government seek to add another. Of those 33 members, one will be a Liberal Democrat and none—as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out—will come from the minority parties. The House must wake up to the democratic deficit at the centre of its workings. I do not mean the elected dictatorships about which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has written his book, and I am not talking about whether the Prime Minister has too much power. My point is whether the House has the appropriate sense of fairness and urgency to put right its procedures by the simple but crucial step of ensuring that the Liaison Committee reflects the views and opinions in the House.
I remind the House that we expect the Liaison Committee to be a senior representative body for Back Benchers. Indeed, the Committee's report to the House has been a landmark in the House's fight to assert its rights over the Executive, and it has been much quoted. It came from a Liaison Committee whose legitimacy depends on it being seen as representative and able to balance the views of hon. Members. If the legitimacy of the Committee is to be upheld in this Parliament, it needs to take more account in its membership of the outlook, experiences and perspectives of those Members of Parliament who have been denied a reasonable share of its membership.
The amendment would not advance the case I am making. If my case were accepted, there would be four places on the Liaison Committee for the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties. However, the amendment would at least prevent the position from being worse than it was in the last Parliament. We had two representatives on the Liaison Committee in that Parliament, but it is now down to one. Our amendment would simply restore the position to two members, as in the last Parliament.
I urge the House to support the amendment, not only for the sake of the Liberal Democrats and minority Members and not even on behalf of Opposition Back Benchers, but for the sake of the Liaison Committee itself and the role that it seeks to play on behalf of the House. I urge the House to support the amendment because it would be for the benefit of the whole House.
7.8 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: In responding to the debate, I shall not intrude on the private debate between the nationalists and the Liberal Democrats, however enjoyable it was for the rest of us. I would say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that I hope that the Modernisation Committee's report will propose making the departmental Select Committees marginally larger, because that will do much to resolve the problem that the hon. Gentleman identified.
72
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his support for the terms of the motion. Between us, we have made a modest step towards modernisation this evening and I hope that the future holds many further such steps. He raised the question of whether the Chair of the Liaison Committee should be a Government supporter. For what it is worth, all the precedents support that. Sir Terence Higgins was the Chair of the Committee through two Parliaments when the Conservatives were in office and Lord Sheldon was the Chair in the last Parliament. However, it would be wrong for us to start to weigh up the relative merits of a potential Chair of the Committee by considering whether he or she is a supporter of the Government. The important question is whether we have found a senior Member with an independent cast of mind, and I am confident that that is what the Liaison Committee will look for.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) expressed some concern about the size of the Committee. That seemed rather at tension with his argument that those who were Chairs of Committees in the previous Parliament should also be members in this Parliament. That could increase its membership to more than 50, rather than 30, so I am not persuaded on that count.
If I may just mildly raise an eyebrow, I was a bit upset to be accused of offering a place to a distinguished colleague as a consolation prize. If any offer of a consolation prize was being made, it sounded to me as though it came from the Liberal Democrat Benches, not from this Dispatch Box.
Nevertheless, I take on board the point that on the basis of the present chairmanships of Select Committees—I seek consensus on this—the Liberal Democrats would be left with only one member of the Liaison Committee. It is important that we do not start to think of the Liaison Committee as one of those Committees to which we appoint Members pro rata, by representation in the House. Strictly speaking, the Liberal Democrats would be entitled to four members on that basis, but I would not accept that as a case for changing the composition of the Committee However, I recognise that to drop from two to one is an unkind thrust when the membership of the House has not changed for the Liberal Democrats. I am keen to maximise support for the motion. Therefore, in a spirit of ensuring the maximum support, I am willing to accept the amendment.
I hope that that will not cause too much distress to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It is not at any cost to his party, which will continue to retain all the members who were on the Committee at the start of this debate. I hope that on that basis we can all agree to set up the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
That,
(1) With effect for the current Parliament, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of Select Committees), the Chairman for the time being of each of the Select Committees listed in paragraph (2) below shall be a member of the Liaison Committee:
(2) The Committees to which paragraph (1) above applies are:

Accommodation and Works

Administration

Broadcasting

73

Catering

Culture, Media and Sport

Defence

Deregulation and Regulatory Reform

Education and Skills

Environmental Audit

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

European Scrutiny

Finance and Services

Foreign Affairs

Health

Home Affairs

Joint Committee on Human Rights (the Chairman being a Member of this House)

Information

International Development

Northern Ireland Affairs

Procedure

Public Accounts

Public Administration

Science and Technology

Scottish Affairs

Selection

Standards and Privileges

Statutory Instruments

Trade and Industry

Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Treasury

Welsh Affairs

Work and Pensions; and

(3) Mr. Alan Williams and Mr. Richard Allan shall also be Members of the Liaison Committee.

Liaison Committee

  COMMITTEES
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions.
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEES
    That Julie Morgan be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. lain Luke be added to the Committee.
    ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
    That Mr. Paul Stinchcombe be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Paddy Tipping be added to the Committee.
    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
    That Mr. Nigel Jones be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr. Alistair Carmichael be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    That Mr. Nick Gibb be added to the Committee of Public Accounts.
    That Tim Loughton be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr. Gregory Barker be added to the Committee.
    STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
    That Tony Baldry and Mr. David Chidgey be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Richard Ottaway and Mr. David Heath be added to the Committee.
    MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
    That Mrs. Angela Browning be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. John Taylor be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Aviation Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
7.13 pm
John McDonnell: Because of the nature of this debate and the wide-ranging interest, other hon. Members may wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would welcome the exercise of your discretion to enable that to take place because of the scale of the problem that we are dealing with.
Heathrow airport is the national centre of the United Kingdom's aviation industry and is located in my constituency. I have sought the debate to discuss the current crisis in the aviation industry. I do not wish to be alarmist, but I do not use the term "crisis" lightly.
Prior to 11 September, the aviation industry, airport operators and all the associated companies were experiencing a cyclical downturn associated with the overall downturn of the world economy, especially the American market. That was nothing unusual. We have been through downturns before. To use an appropriate expression, we expected a soft landing when the downturn bottomed out, after which the markets would begin to pick up again.
Prior to 11 September, several firms had announced a tightening of their belts and associated voluntary redundancies. Again, it was nothing that we had not experienced before. The aim was to get through the downturn with the least pain possible and to prepare for the upturn in demand, estimated to occur within about 12 months. September 11 and the horrific attack on the World Trade Centre changed all that.
The pre-existing downturn was exacerbated dramatically by the terrorist attack. A predictable fall in demand, the impact of which was generally assessed as lasting 12 months and which was thought manageable, was immediately transformed into a crisis of significant proportions for those working in the aviation industry and for communities heavily dependent on airport operations, including communities in my constituency and others located around Heathrow.
I run through just some of the public announcements that have been made since 11 September by airport operators and the aviation industry which will result in job losses. Since 11 September, British Airways has announced that 5,200 jobs are to go, on top of the 1,800 previously announced due to the economic slow-down. Virgin has recently announced 1,200 redundancies. British Midland, which has a lower exposure to the transatlantic impact, is nevertheless grounding eight aircraft and cutting 600 jobs.
European airlines have been similarly affected. Swissair has filed for bankruptcy. Lufthansa has cut one United States route, grounded four aircraft and shelved orders for new aircraft. KLM has cut capacity by 5 per cent. Alitalia has cut staff by 12 per cent. Aer Lingus has cut scheduled services by 25 per cent. Austrian Airlines has cut capacity by 10 per cent. Air France has removed 17 aircraft from service and Sabena has filed for bankruptcy.
United States airlines have been hit equally hard, if not more so. United Airlines has announced 20,000 job losses worldwide and a 20 per cent. cut in flight schedules.
76
American Airlines has laid off at least 20,000 employees in order to survive and reduced capacity by 15 per cent. Continental Airlines will lay off 12,000 employees. Northwest Airlines has cut 10,000 jobs.
Aircraft manufacturers are also feeling the impact of 11 September. Boeing has announced cuts in jobs of 20,000 to 30,000. The impact on passenger traffic through Heathrow has been around 20 per cent. Air traffic control has experienced a 20 per cent. reduction in support staff, as was announced recently: initially, it was announced that 1,100 jobs would go, but over the weekend we read that that could go up to 2,000.
Mr. Martin Salter: Does not my hon. Friend recall that many of us who were extremely unhappy at the proposed part-privatisation of National Air Traffic Services received assurances that it would not lead to cuts in the standard of service, nor indeed, in the support infrastructure upon which air traffic controllers depend? Given the cataclysmic events of 11 September, the contraction in the industry, the decision recently announced by the Government to put on hold the second Scottish air traffic control centre, and that a number of the airlines that he listed that are making substantial job cuts are members of the Airline Group, the consortium that is the Government's strategic partner, does he not think that now is an excellent time for Ministers to show the same pragmatism and realism towards NATS that they showed towards Railtrack, before it is too late?
John McDonnell: I fully concur with my hon. Friend's views. The NATS privatised business plan is now unworkable. It is time to rethink the whole proposal and introduce the trust option that was put forward by me and my hon. Friend in the debate on the privatisation of NATS. In fact, the trust route is being used for Railtrack itself.
Mr. Salter: I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way, although he has some time at his disposal. If it is right and proper—I believe that it is—for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to say that there is an essential contradiction between the interests of the travelling public and the interests of the shareholders vis-à-vis what was formerly Railtrack—that botched and barmy privatisation as we have called it—does not the same logic apply to the very service that we depend upon to ensure that aircraft are kept apart and that the travelling public can continue to use the airline industry with confidence and safety?
John McDonnell: There is a need for consistency from the Government on transport overall, and that consistency must apply to air traffic. In the current difficult circumstances for the aviation industry, we could do without the problems associated with air traffic control and the inherent dangers of the system that has been proposed. I agree that there should be a complete rethink: we should go back to the drawing board and reconsider the trust option.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that NATS was to have funded its business plan with investment of £1 billion, but that

77
because of the problems of the airline partners that funding will almost certainly no longer be forthcoming? Will not the Government have to rethink the whole NATS privatisation plan?
John McDonnell: A rethink of the overall proposal is inevitable. We are not talking only of future investment but of future solvency: that is my main concern. The job losses already announced and future possible job losses will put the whole system at risk.
The announcements that I listed are based on staff lay-offs—often worldwide—throughout the companies involved. However, because Heathrow airport is a focus for the operations of many of those companies, a significant proportion of the job losses will fall on Heathrow and its communities. Even the job losses announced by European and American airlines will have a major impact at Heathrow, because most of those companies maintain substantial operations at the airport.
The impact is being felt not only by the airline operators but throughout the lengthy supply chain of the aviation industry. It is estimated that about 180,000 people are directly employed in the aviation industry, but that about 200,000 people work in its immediate supply chain, providing goods and services to the industry. Evidence is appearing that depicts the impact of the combination of the already existing downturn and 11 September on the multitude of supply firms. Orders are not coming through, bookings are falling and telephones no longer ring in offices with the usual demand for service delivery. Many of those firms are small and are those that employ the lowest-paid staff. Such companies are least able to provide reasonable redundancy packages and support measures for staff leaving their employment.
A large proportion of the staff affected by the current crisis—especially the lower-paid staff—live in the communities surrounding Heathrow airport. According to figures published last year, direct employment at Heathrow is about 68,000. For every person directly employed at the airport, it is estimated that there are three in the supply chain. Eighty per cent. of the workers directly employed at Heathrow live in the surrounding local authority areas, putting about £2 billion into the local economy. More than 25,000 directly employed workers live in the three immediate boroughs of Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow.
There is a paradox in that although the development of a massive airport such as Heathrow brings with it the advantage of large-scale employment, it also has the disadvantage of increasing demand for land, thereby raising land prices and providing other sectors of industry with an incentive to sell their sites and move to cheaper locations, thus squeezing out those sectors. Local economies have become heavily dependent on Heathrow so when the aviation industry catches a cold, our communities risk pneumonia.
Mr. Salter: Will my hon. Friend share with the House his view as to the effect of this dramatic decline in the industry on the plans for Heathrow terminal 5? Those plans have given rise to some controversy across the whole Thames valley.
John McDonnell: There is an argument that the current problems might bring the terminal into existence more
78
swiftly. I would argue that we should stand back and consider the future demand for a fifth terminal, and that we should adopt a more planned approach to aviation development in the south-east. For example, there is a proposal to develop Marinair, rather than building a fifth terminal. That would give us greater long-term capacity as well as some breathing space. However, I await the announcement about terminal 5 and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will not want to comment on that issue tonight.
I have lived in my community for more than 25 years, representing it on the Greater London council and in Parliament. I went through the three recessions under the previous Conservative Government and witnessed the effects of unemployment on my community. That Government's commitment to market-oriented, noninterventionist policies meant that they failed to act to assist my community during that period. We lost most of our manufacturing base, and only after four years of Labour Government are we beginning to get back on our feet. That is why I am asking—pleading—for an interventionist approach from the Government.
It has been suggested that the current problems faced by the aviation industry will be as temporary as those experienced during the Gulf war or in previous downturns. I differ strongly from that view. The fact that civilian aircraft were used as a weapon in the 11 September attack and that the present war is predicated on a long-haul approach to tackling terrorism means, in the view of many people, that the current recession in the industry will be deeper and longer lasting. In that situation, the Government cannot stand back or fail to intervene.
Today at Heathrow, I convened a meeting with the airport community partners—the airport operators, the British Airports Authority, trade unions, community leaders and local MPs—and the Minister for Transport. We held a useful discussion and agreed to form an airport community task group to prepare a programme—an agenda—for a co-ordinated approach to tackle the recession that faces us, considering short and long-term measures to address the crisis.
The proposals include, first, support for individuals. We want to establish a form of early-warning system to predict the announcement of lay-offs. We want to provide a co-ordinated system of advice and assistance on issues such as welfare benefits, redundancy payments, retraining and employment opportunities for those workers threatened with unemployment as a result of the crisis. We want to bring together local advice agencies, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Employment Service to provide that facility for people threatened with, or experiencing, the loss of their job.
We want to consider advice and assistance for alternative employment through the Employment Service, which has already established an initiative as a result of previous crises in other industries. That could be valuable in our area.
We want to examine how to set up retraining options through the Learning and Skills Council, working with local colleges and training agencies to ensure the reskilling of people who will be displaced from their existing jobs. Some of them may return to the aviation industry, but we want to make sure that they have updated skills, thus giving them greater employability.

79
Secondly, we considered support for the industry itself—for the companies. We are concerned about the additional costs that they are bearing as a result of the crisis and examined several measures to assist them. That is not a soft option; it is not backing losers: it is about finding short-term support to help to tide us over the current crisis. Some of the proposals included the following: to extend
"at no cost to the industry the period in which Her Majesty's Government acts as insurer of last resort from 30 to a minimum of 180 days":
to secure
"rapid agreement from other governments to achieve a uniform worldwide limit on third party liability and the corresponding insurance indemnification requirements";
to provide
"allowable financial assistance for tour operators—"
and airline companies—
"to cover the exceptional costs incurred and revenues lost as a direct result of the four day closure of North American and other affected airspace";
and to ensure
"that airlines do not incur additional costs in meeting the enhanced security".
The protection of the public demands assistance from the Government to ensure the highest levels of security.
Another proposal was for a promotional programme to get people flying again—to renew their confidence in the aviation industry. Historically, flying is the safest form of travel and we should remind people of that, and that we are working together to ensure that it continues to be so.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has touched on the issue of confidence, which is extremely important in encouraging people to travel by air. As we are losing a great deal of transatlantic business, our airlines—among all the European airlines—are particularly badly hit, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British and American Governments must do all they can to work together? In that connection, does he endorse the fact that the French have come up with a bilateral agreement with the United States—whereas our Government have still not been able to do so? Does he agree that we should put every possible effort into concluding such a bilateral agreement?
John McDonnell: Those at this morning's meeting argued that there should be a level playing field across Europe and the United States and that those negotiations should continue apace. 1 believe that Ministers are visiting America this week to hold discussions to enable that to happen.
Several of company and trade union representatives at the meeting made the point that George Bush's Administration has sunk £6 billion of support into the airline operators to ensure that they get through this period. We shall look for some form of assistance—again, on a selective basis and in response to real need—to get through this crisis.
Security and the restoration of confidence were critical to our discussions. There have been continued security lapses at some of our airports, which we do not want to
80
highlight too much because, in general, the security is good, but there is still a need to tighten it up. We must be firm with those companies that avoid their responsibilities by allowing unvetted staff to operate air-side and, as was said this morning, by preventing their staff from discussing security problems with the inspectors.
The third issue discussed was support for the communities affected by the aviation crisis, because it was felt that we need to reappraise existing regeneration initiatives to take account of the latest situation. For example, many of the single regeneration budget programmes around Heathrow will end in the next 18 months. Community leaders argued this morning that additional funds are needed to support regeneration initiatives, for example, training, retraining, new enterprise promotion and development in the airport community areas.
The fact that the SRB is running out at a critical time, just as our communities need it, is unfortunate, so there is a need to examine whether additional resources can be provided, possibly through the central pool that the Mayor of London will hold at the end of the SRB period. However, because of competing demands on that central pool, there is an argument that additional resources should come from the Treasury direct to London to help us to tackle the current problems.
The other issue raised in this morning's discussion was the problem that local authorities around Heathrow have in bidding for additional funds under other regeneration schemes. The problem is that with high levels of employment around Heathrow, the local authorities do not necessarily score well in the deprivation indices because unemployment has a great influence on those indices. However, those indices do not take into account the quality of employment, so we may have high levels of employment, but, unfortunately, there are also high levels of low pay. The deprivation indices must be reshaped to ensure that moneys are awarded according to the quality of life of the local people in those communities.
We felt that all those matters should be open to negotiation with central Government to reflect the current crisis. We want the work of the existing agencies, such as the London development agency and the Learning and Skills Council, to be co-ordinated to assist in the short term and to consider the longer-term problems, so that we can rebalance our local economies to avoid overdependence on the airport if a further downturn occurs.
The long-term solutions were the fourth issue discussed. Obviously, there is a strong argument for continued investment in the infrastructure to keep ahead in such a competitive market. Apart from terminal 5, crossrail was also mentioned as one of the key projects needed to keep Heathrow at the forefront of the world's aviation industry. However, all the operators recognised that the airport must be a good neighbour to its surrounding communities and that the environmental impact of such measures should be addressed.
As a result of this morning's discussions, we have agreed that we will convene the task group and aim to submit a briefing paper to Ministers, including those at the Treasury, within weeks. There is a real sense of urgency about the matter. We aim to identify a programme of readily available and implementable measures for the Government. We want to work together

81
to get our own communities through the current crisis and to return to the stable economic climate that we have experienced in recent years.
Heathrow is the logistical centre for this country; it is also a logistical centre for Europe and for the world. We must not allow the current crisis to undermine its pre-eminence in that role. On Thursday, the Transport and General Workers Union will lobby the House. Many workers from Heathrow will come here to express their concerns about the threat to their livelihoods. We need to give them a clear view that we appreciate their concerns and will stand by them, so that we can see them through the current crisis.
7.34 pm
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my constituency neighbour, not only on obtaining this debate but on managing to ensure, by good fortune, that we have more time than the half an hour normally permitted on many of these occasions, which has allowed other hon. Members to contribute.
My constituency borders Heathrow, and many of the problems that the hon. Gentleman has outlined affect my constituency, especially in the southern half around West Drayton and Yiewsley. However, as he said, such issues do not just affect the aviation industry; there is a huge knock-on effect locally—for example, on the hotels and some of the other service industries in the area. I declare an interest: I am still a director of retail outlet in Uxbridge, so I know that consumer confidence is also affected. A new shopping centre has opened in Uxbridge, and the viability of such developments is also dependent on the confidence of the local economy. I am pleased to report that consumer confidence is holding up in the pre-Christmas rush.
Without repeating too much of what the hon. Gentleman said, there is another knock-on effect. Many of the local organisations connected with the airport—in particular, the British Airports Authority and British Airways—contribute to the local economy by being involved in voluntary schemes, such as the Hillingdon Partnership Trust. When they begin to feel the pinch, there will be a knock-on effect on many of our community projects.
One or two controversial issues have cropped up at the same time as the crisis in the aviation industry. The ruling on night flights will put some hon. Members in a difficult position. Although we advocate help for the aviation industry and want people to have confidence, we are pleased that the ruling might, if the Government take it on board, provide relief for many of our constituents. However, we have to consider the economic effect that that will have on the airlines.
I should also like to echo the comments made about NATS, because those services must be reconsidered in the light of recent events.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the TGWU's lobby on Thursday this week, and I am pleased to say that it has been very active—I was even accosted at half-term at the excellent match between Uxbridge and Cirencester Town. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will be delighted to know that that match ended in a three-all draw, with the replay tomorrow. A great deal of local
82
concern has been expressed about the impact of all the job losses and their effect on people's perception of the local economy.
As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we have been very lucky in many respects. We have felt the benefits of the airport, but, as he said, we have put all our eggs in one basket. Now that that basket has been severely rattled, we are very concerned that, as he said so eloquently, when the aviation industry sneezes, we shall end up with pneumonia. That view is widely held in the local area.
Our overarching desire is to try to ensure that our aviation industry has a level playing field, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred. I should also like to congratulate him on convening the meeting that he mentioned and the Minister for Transport for agreeing to be involved with the taskforce. I am sorry that I could not attend this morning because of previous engagements, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on acting quickly.
The TGWU is looking for other measures, and I am sure that the Treasury has its own ideas, as, I suspect, has the shadow Treasury team. The TGWU is looking for an immediate freeze on air passenger duty and, particularly, for compensation for the lost four days in the immediate aftermath of 11 September when many flights did not take off. A great deal of money was lost.

The hon. Gentleman referred to security, and I agree that the issue must be considered. There will be additional security costs and the aviation industry and the airlines, in particular, might find them to be what might be described as a burden. Although we all want further security measures to be introduced, they will create extra costs at a time when airlines' income is falling.
The hon. Gentleman and I might slightly disagree about terminal 5. I think that an early statement would restore local confidence in the airline industry. I have strong environmental concerns, but the construction of the terminal might provide opportunities that would benefit the local economy. We have had many discussions on that point in the past, and I accept that we might have to agree to differ on it.
It is not my job or that of anyone in the House to tell businesses how to run their enterprises, but it is interesting to note that some airlines have not suffered the same impact recently. I understand that the transatlantic routes of airlines such as British Airways are a particular problem, but I wonder whether the airlines have been as quick in promoting confidence in air travel as they might have been. Perhaps they could have been a bit more generous in discounting flights in the way that some of the low-cost airlines have done. Those airlines have been quick off the mark and that fact has been reflected in their figures.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the continuation of the regeneration budgets. Perhaps we could extend the single regeneration budget beyond the next 18 months or we could look to the Mayor of London for help. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we are constantly told that we are in for a long haul and that might mean that the aviation industry will not emerge from its current problems as quickly as we would like.
The hon. Gentleman referred to crossrail, and we have always accepted the need to be good neighbours. The aviation industry provides jobs even though some of them are low paid. Therefore, if we expect it to be a good

83
neighbour to our constituents, it is beholden on our communities to be good neighbours to the industry in times of trouble. Even the people who are not directly affected by job losses in the industry recognise that we need to ensure that the local economy does not suffer the consequences that some of us fear that it might. I therefore urge the Minister to consult his colleagues to ensure that the problems that I have described are tackled urgently.
7.43 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The House knows that I am used to being adaptable. Within days of my appointment to the Opposition Front-Bench team, I was shuffled from my responsibilities for matters involving the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to those relating to the DLTR. However, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have advised me that I should not speak from the Front Bench in this debate because it might create a precedent even in these exceptional circumstances. I am therefore delighted to take part from the Back Benches in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
The debate is timely, and the hon. Gentleman covered the issues in a measured and constructive tone. The last thing that anyone would want to do is exacerbate the situation by causing further alarm. Unless we can instil confidence in the general public that they should continue to travel by air, the terrorists will, in a sense, have won. We therefore need to move forward in a constructive fashion.
The hon. Gentleman described many of the lay-offs that have taken place and I do not want to add to the list. However, they are a sign of the pressure that has been put on the airline industry—I use the term in its widest sense—since 11 September. However, the problems do not all result from then; a certain amount of restructuring was due to happen in any case.
It is not all bad news. For example, this evening's Evening Standard reports that Ryanair has just announced increased profits. They have risen by 30 per cent. to 102 million euros in the six months ending in September compared with analysts' expectations of 89 million euros. In addition, revenues were up by 29 per cent. The newspaper quotes Ryanair's chief executive, Mr. O'Leary. Describing his rivals, he said:
"'Many have used the events of 11 September as an excuse to cover their continuing losses but they were loss making well before then and will continue to be so.'
He praised European Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio for 'doing a fine job' preventing 'basket cases' from receiving more State aid."
That may sound pejorative, but Ryanair has shown that there is still hope in the airline industry.
Ryanair is talking about purchasing more second-hand planes. The Evening Standard reports:
"It is also talking to owners of 600 second-hand 737s as well as planemaker Boeing about buying 50 more aircraft."
There is some good news about, and we want to spread it. Anything that the Government can do to encourage the future of the airline industry would be welcome.
I strongly echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I hope that there will be an announcement on terminal 5 very shortly and that,
84
when it comes, it will not follow the precedents that the Government have set recently. I hope that a full statement will be made to the House before the press is informed, so that we may play a full part in scrutinising the announcement first. Will the Minister take that point on board? I know that there has been controversy about terminal 5, but the industry will gain confidence if it knows where it is going.
The infrastructure of London's airports has been mentioned. The number of job losses at Heathrow is likely to be substantial, but the Government could consider a number of options. Last week in Westminster Hall, I made the point that we need to consider the infrastructure used for travelling between London's airports. There is still a poor service between the two major airports of Heathrow and Gatwick, but surely we could consider providing fast rail systems or improving the M25 so that bus travel is quicker and more predictable.
In Westminster Hall, attention was drawn to the Thameslink rail link between Luton and King's Cross. I travelled on it recently and it is still a relatively poor service. It stops at every little station when we want a high-speed rail link between King's Cross and Luton. In fact, as on the link between Paddington and Heathrow, one should be able to check in one's baggage at King's Cross. Even in the current security situation, the ability to check in baggage could be used at more of the terminals that link central London with major London airports, and in respect of links between airports. That would make travel easier for people changing from domestic to international flights.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the NAT'S privatisation programme. The debate on that will have to be reopened in light of today's uncertain circumstances. We need to be clear about the direction that our airspace control is taking. If the second planned airspace terminal at Prestwick is not going ahead—the Minister is shaking his head—he needs to explain where the investment for Prestwick and West Drayton is coming from and where he expects it to go. As I said, if the £1 billion investment from the consortiums is not forthcoming, where will the money come from to fund those two improvements? We need to know that fairly shortly.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Government's role as insurer of last resort. They could provide stability for the industry. The first offer to be insurer a last resort was only a day or two away from running out when the Government announced that they would pay the premiums for another 30 days. We need to know the Government's plans. They should not leave it until the day when the arrangement runs out. Let us try to provide certainty.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should extend the period from 30 days to 180. As I have no technical expertise, I do not know whether that is right, but it seems to me that a longer period would be of great benefit to the industry. Unless there is another terrorist outbreak, I do not think that that would be too expensive. If there is another terrorist outbreak, they will spend a lot more on unemployment benefit and so on. It would surely pay to keep some stability in the industry, and that is one way of doing it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned negotiating with the European Union on what specific help can be provided when the single regeneration bid ends, because that is

85
causing uncertainty. Conversations with the relevant directorates general in the EU on what could be done to the state aid rules in such exceptional circumstances would pay dividends. There is a significant threat of job lay-offs, and a number of jobs have already gone. The Government could talk to the EU about that.
While the Government are finding out what can be provided for the airline industry, they should consider targeted help for security measures. We know that they are receiving more than £1 billion in airport passenger levy. The Government have increased the rate and are now bringing in that substantial sum. Although that is going into the general Treasury coffers, it would be wrong in such exceptional circumstances for the cost of increased security measures to fall on an individual airline. Carefully targeted measures would be helpful. Again, 1 do not think that that would be too expensive.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's eminently sensible initiative to bring everyone together in a taskforce, especially members of the TGWU. I was not aware that it was going to lobby the House on Thursday, and the debate is timely. Many of its members must be apprehensive. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to see what can be done to ensure that as many jobs are preserved as possible and to bring all Government agencies together to decide what can be done to help people who are going to lose their jobs. I was especially impressed with the hon. Gentleman's idea about the Learning and Skills Council. That is a positive initiative to retrain people who lose their jobs, perhaps to re-enter the industry with new qualifications and skills when it revives and expands.
I do not want to detain the House. The Minister can do a great deal to reassure the industry. That would be tremendously helpful. We all need to chart a way through the crisis so that we shorten the recession as much as possible. Every measure will help, including talking to the European and American authorities. We know from tonight's Evening Standard that British Airways is about to drop out of the FTSE 100, which is a serious development. Its profits and share price have plunged. No one wants that. We all want it to recover quickly. One reason why it has taken such a dive is that of all European airlines, it is one of the most dependent on the transatlantic trade. Anything that the Government can do, including concluding a bilateral agreement, would be beneficial.
7.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing the debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss this important subject. I thank him for making so many vital points, and for the calm and measured way in which he raised them on behalf of his constituents.
I want to respond in full to many of my hon. Friend's concerns, but I shall deal first with the comments made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I am glad that consumer confidence is still high in Uxbridge. I am sure that the good people there are delighted to have a Labour Government who have enabled that to be the case. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important issues, which I shall address.
86
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is temporarily on the Back Benches. I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench again. He said that he had been assigned to the DLTR; I think he meant the DTLR—the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That is my Department, and I hope that he is shadow spokesman for it. The hon. Gentleman made the important point, which needs to be made, that some airlines are doing well. Tonight we are discussing some of the industry's problems, however.
The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long for an announcement on terminal 5, but I cannot tell him what it will contain. He also mentioned National Air Traffic Services, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who has a long history of raising that subject. We have not received a request for financial assistance from NATS. We have agreed only a pause in the building programme at the Scottish centre, which we had to do following the events of 11 September. We are firmly committed to the two-centre strategy.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister confirm that, when we finally have an announcement on terminal 5, it will be made first to this House and not to the media?
Mr. Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this House will be fore-informed of any announcement that we make.
The Government recognise the great importance of the aviation industry to the United Kingdom economy and are therefore paying close attention to the industry's current problems, as so well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. We acted quickly in response to the events of 11 September to counteract the failure in the aviation insurance industry market and to enhance security measures at all UK airports. We are actively considering the payment of emergency aid to airlines for the four days when United States airspace was closed, in accordance with European Commission guidelines.
In addition to those practical measures, we are doing what we can to restore confidence in air travel. For example, last week I undertook a programme of visits to UK airports—I went to Gatwick, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Bristol, and a few weeks earlier I had visited Plymouth airport—to help boost morale and encourage consumer confidence in air travel. I pay tribute to people who in recent weeks have worked extremely hard in many of our airports to ensure that they are even safer than before. I know that many of those people have worked under enormous stress and pressure in recent weeks. I give credit to them, especially my hon. Friend's constituents.
Some 180,000 people in the United Kingdom are employed in the aviation industry—an industry with a gross domestic product similar to that of car manufacturing—with up to three times as many jobs supported indirectly. Moreover, the UK aerospace industry employs around 154,000 people, contributing almost 1 per cent. of GDP. Aviation is particularly important to local economies around major airports. As my hon. Friend said, Heathrow airport accounts directly for 68,000 jobs and is by far the biggest employer on a single site in London.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport was able this morning to meet my hon. Friend, fellow Members and representatives of the air transport

87
industry, trade unions and local communities to discuss the situation of Heathrow airport and its surrounding areas. I understand that the discussion was constructive and wide ranging, and that those present agreed to engage in a regular exchange of information on the state of the industry during this difficult period. I also understand that the employment market in the areas surrounding Heathrow is holding up well at present, but it is obviously important that all concerned should be in a position to react quickly to any deterioration in the situation. I take particular note of my hon. Friend's comments about low pay in his area.
My hon. Friend talked about the task group of the airport's community partners that is being set up, and I was pleased to hear that. As he rightly says, there needs to be a programme for a co-ordinated approach. I certainly look forward to receiving the briefing paper from that group. I know that the Department for Education and Skills is involved and that the Employment Service will be actively involved. I assure my hon. Friend that Departments and particularly the Employment Service will be giving every support to people who may be facing redundancy. I suppose that one good point is that the economy is doing well, and we should be thankful for that, but that is probably small comfort to people who may be losing their jobs in the weeks ahead.
There can be no doubt that the aviation industry has suffered a body-blow as a result of the terrorist attacks of 11 September. Not only was air transport chosen as the instrument of terror in those attacks, but the industry has become the most prominent casualty in the subsequent economic fallout. The International Air Transport Association has predicted a collective industry loss of £7 billion for 2001. Many are saying that the effects will be worse than those experienced following the Gulf war. It is clearly too early to tell precisely how badly the effects will be or how long they will last, but traffic figures published by the Association of European Airlines for the five weeks up to 14 October showed that the north Atlantic market was down by about one third compared with the same period last year, while European traffic was down by about 10 per cent.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister will be aware that the American Government made available selective aid of $15 billion to their industry. Will he confirm that he is urgently talking to his European Commission counterparts to see what selective state aid either the EU or the British Government might be able to give to our airline industry?
Mr. Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman—we made this point the other day in a similar debate in Westminster Hall—that we are having, have had and are still having active discussions with our European Community partners. He will know that the matter is within European Union competence. We are certainly considering how we can ensure that our industry is not disadvantaged.
We must put the crisis into context. European and charter traffic has been less badly affected—I certainly found that when visiting airports around the country—and the low-cost sector continues to register very strong passenger growth. The wider economic picture is far from gloomy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he is "cautiously optimistic" about the future, with UK
88
interest rates and inflation low, and public finances stable. Nevertheless, we appreciate the fact that scheduled long-haul carriers are facing genuine difficulties. I am aware that British Airways has only today announced a 25 per cent. fall in traffic for October compared with the previous year.
The current uncertainties inevitably translate into lost jobs throughout the aviation industry and in the service industries supporting it. Most of the main UK airlines have already announced redundancies. British Airways, for example, has announced that it will shed 7,000 jobs. I know that airlines are making every effort to achieve those cuts by voluntary means, but each lost job can be and will be a personal tragedy affecting families and communities in areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency.
It is important to point out that the aviation industry was, by common consensus. in trouble before the events of 11 September, which was due primarily to the economic downturn and high fuel costs. The European industry in particular has long been overdue for restructuring. For example, it cannot make sense for 17 European carriers to offer scheduled services across the Atlantic, against only seven US carriers. The problems experienced by many European flight carriers stem from long before 11 September, although clearly those events have compounded the problems.
Nevertheless, following the attacks in the United States, the industry has had to face new problems. Initially, US airspace was closed for four days. Then there was the decision by the insurance market to limit its exposure to future terrorist attacks by withdrawing third party war risks cover—a decision that threatened to ground the entire industry. Circumstances dictated that security measures needed to be tightened, and the response of a significant proportion of the travelling public was also predictable—they cancelled their reservations or simply declined to book.
Despite the Government's long-standing policy not to intervene in the aviation market, such exceptional circumstances clearly warranted Government action. The Government took immediate steps to counteract the failure in the insurance market. Within a few days and before the imminent withdrawal of cover had grounded the entire UK fleet, we made available to our airlines and related industry the necessary third party war risks cover. Indeed, so quick off the mark were we and so effective was the remedy that we devised that our lead has been widely followed throughout the world. Although initially for one month, the coverage has recently been extended to 23 November. We shall, of course, reconsider that during our discussions with the airlines, but it might be somewhat premature to extend coverage now in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Cotswold. The situation unfolds further daily and we have to consider our policies on the same basis.
Despite the few deplorable lapses that have been reported in the past few weeks, standards of security in the UK before 11 September were among the highest in the world. During my recent visits to airports, I have seen the extremely high standards of both pre-existing security measures and the enhanced measures implemented since 11 September. Nevertheless, we have enhanced security measures at all UK airports and for airlines leaving this country. In addition, we are carrying out a fundamental review of aviation security to ensure that air travel is as

89
safe from terrorist attacks as we can make it, while at the same time balancing security with our freedom to travel. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington welcomes BAA's estimate that 150 extra security staff will be needed at Heathrow. I understand that the response to advertisements placed in the local press has been good.
Aid to airlines is controlled by the European Community, which has exclusive competence for monitoring state aid that distorts or threatens to distort competition in so far as it affects trade between member states. The European Commission acted quickly to address the repercussions of the terrorist attacks for the air transport industry. It issued a communication which reiterates that member states must not depart from Community rules on state aid, but sets out how the Commission will interpret the rules in the current situation. The extra costs of security, losses directly attributable to the closure of US airspace and the provision by Governments of insurance cover are identified as areas where state aid would be justifiable. The Government are currently considering whether further aid to UK airlines should be made available, taking those guidelines into account.
On 16 October, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Minister for Transport attended the Transport Council in Brussels. They strongly supported the Commission's view that it would not be in the industry's long-term interests to bail out individual airlines that are, by any objective measure, no longer viable. UK airlines have always performed well when they have been able to compete on fair terms in the marketplace. My right hon. Friends made clear our disapproval of proposals by some member states to distort the market by propping up their flag carriers with inappropriate state aid.
UK Ministers also took the opportunity to promote our views on restructuring the industry. We consider it vital that the repercussions of 11 September act as a spur rather than a brake to airline consolidation, but it is not for Governments to engineer consolidation. That is for the airlines, acting on their own commercial judgment, whereas it is our duty to ensure that the regulatory framework facilitates change. One of the obstacles to intra-European Union airline mergers is the attitude of prospective third-country bilateral partners. Strict adherence to outdated ownership and control restrictions on the part of other countries might seriously impede the consolidation that we in Europe need. Looking to the future, we have a successful base on which to build.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the phenomenal growth in the number of air passengers in the past 10 years has been the real-terms decrease in air fares? Will he be vigilant against excessive consolidation in Europe, which might result in competition becoming less intense than it has been in recent years and the fall in air fares being reversed? A real-terms increase in fares would be an additional deterrent to air travel.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that air travel costs have fallen in real terms. It is also true that people have more money in their pockets: our economy and, by and large, the economies of other European
90
countries are doing well, so more people are travelling. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must ensure that there is proper competition in the market.
The UK has a wide range of quality airlines, including a very successful no-frills sector. That is underpinned by some of the most successful airports in the world: Heathrow serves more international passengers than any other airport in the world, with Gatwick sixth on that list. It is impressive to note that travellers to and from the UK account for 25 per cent. of all international air travellers. We want that success story to continue. Some will say that in the current circumstances, it is all a question of survival, not expansion, and that might be true in the short term, but I am confident that the industry is resilient enough to secure future growth.
The Government remain committed to addressing the long-term future of UK aviation. We have a manifesto commitment to publish a new White Paper next year: in it, we intend to set out our plans on aviation and airports for 30 years ahead, and that work continues with energy. Over a 30-year period there are bound to be severe shocks to the industry—the past 30 years has seen its share of such shocks, whether as a result of terrorist action or of increases in the price of oil, but, despite that, world aviation has grown continuously during that period, with declines proving to be but temporary.
Governments around the world will be doing their best to ensure that any pause in economic growth is as small and as short as possible. Our long-term forecasts are based on trends driven largely by growth in national and world GDP, and we are confident that demand for air travel will eventually come back into line with long-term forecasts. Our aim therefore remains to produce a White Paper that provides a framework for the sustainable development of aviation and airports in the UK. It will attempt to balance the social, environmental and economic impacts of the industry while remaining consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
The UK has long been a world leader in aviation, and despite the current difficulties it will remain so. The prognosis for UK aviation is very encouraging, albeit that the current economic difficulties may have wrought permanent changes in the industry. I look to the future with confidence and foresee a stronger European aviation industry, with the UK maintaining its vanguard position.
I am pleased to have been able to set the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington in a broader context tonight. The Government understand the special difficulties facing his constituency; we understand, too, that trade unions and others will be concerned about job losses in the area. However, I assure him that the Government are doing everything we can in difficult and somewhat unpredictable circumstances to ensure that the problems do not last long, and that the situation does not become permanent. I hope that we will in future be able to have a debate in which we can agree that the fortunes of the people in his constituency and of Heathrow have risen as we expect them to.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eight o 'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Cluster Bombs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she has been consulted on the legality of the use of cluster bombs. [11844]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, as chief legal advisers to Her Majesty's Government, are available to advise the Government on all questions of international and domestic law. In this capacity, the Law Officers have been asked to advise, from time to time, on legal issues relating to the use of force, including international humanitarian law. There is a long-standing convention that neither the substance of the Law Officers' advice, nor the fact that they have been consulted, is disclosed outside Government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ambassadors (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to appoint the first(a) black and (b) Asian ambassador. [11431]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The first minority ethnic ambassador was appointed in 1993. Mr. Noel Jones served as ambassador to Kazakhstan from 1993 to 1995.

  The Diplomatic Service is committed to reflecting the modern face of Britain and to attracting talent from all ethnic groups. To this end, we are continually working to encourage minority ethnic people to apply to join the service.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement. [10834]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: A description of the antiques and paintings in FCO properties appears in the FCO part of the national asset register. The Government wine cellar contains substantial stocks of fine wines for use at home. The FCO manages the cellar on behalf of the Government as a whole, and not exclusively for the FCO. The FCO owns no wine stocks overseas. No antiques, paintings or wines have been sold over the past three years and there are no plans to sell such items over the period of the current comprehensive spending review.

  Cuba
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the US Secretary of State the inclusion of Cuba on the US list of nations that sponsor terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [12056]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign Secretary has not discussed the US list of nations that sponsor terrorism with the US Secretary of State. The Government do not subscribe to the list; it is a US list and a matter for the US authorities.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sulawesi, Indonesia, with particular reference to attacks on the Christian minority by Muslim extremists. [12246]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The sentencing to death of three Christian militia leaders on 5 April provoked civil disturbances in Poso, central Sulawesi. Following the deployment of an additional Infantry Battalion in August, the situation in Poso itself has been calm. However, some low-level violence between Muslims and Christians has continued in remoter areas of Sulawesi.

  We will continue to monitor cases of inter-communal violence closely and raise our concerns with the Indonesian Government at every appropriate opportunity.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he plans to have with the Indonesian authorities on the subject of inter-religious violence. [12247]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I most recently raised this issue with the Indonesian Vice President Hamzah Haz, when we met in Jakarta in August.

  We will continue to monitor the situation carefully and raise our concerns with the Indonesian Government at every appropriate opportunity.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from employers following the passage of the Part-Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourite Treatment) Regulations 2000. [11831]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has received no representations from employers on the regulations themselves since they came into force. However, we worked closely with employer representatives during and following the passage of the regulations to develop appropriate guidance for business, and we continue to discuss issues relating to part-time work with employers and employer groups from time to time.

  Information and Consultation Directive
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the sanctions proposed for firms that fail to comply with the information and consultation directive. [11004]

  Alan Johnson
  The proposed directive requires member states to determine the provisions for enforcement of the obligations provided they are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. This part of the text was not the subject of amendment by the European Parliament. The Government will consult fully in due course on the implementation of the directive, including the question of sanctions.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the European Parliament amendments to the draft information and consultation directive which were passed on 23 October and the Government's policy in respect of the draft directive as amended. [10996]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government believe it is unnecessary and unhelpful to try to change the text of the proposed directive agreed at the Council of Ministers in June. We will be strongly defending the Council's common position. The UK is not alone in this view. Several other member states are also opposed to changing the flexible measures previously agreed. We expect the Council to stick closely to the common position text.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make an assessment of the impact of the changes to the information and consultation directive which were agreed in the European Parliament on 23 October on the regulatory burden on small business in the UK. [10985]

  Alan Johnson
  The proposed directive will not affect small businesses and the European Parliament's proposed amendments do not alter this fact. In the UK the directive will apply to undertakings with 50 or more employees and will, therefore, only affect about 1 per cent. of UK businesses.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  International Labour Conference
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library the instruments adopted at the 88th session of the International Labour Conference. [13104]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The 88th session of the International Labour Conference adopted a new convention revising the Maternity Protection Convention 1952 and a Recommendation supplementing the convention. The texts of the instruments have been placed in the Library.

  Child Support
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the CSA is owed in unpaid maintenance. [11584]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  4W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Colin Pickthall, dated 1 November 2001 I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Child Support Agency.
  You asked how much the CSA is owed in unpaid maintenance.
  The amount of maintenance that is owed as at year ending March 2001 is £527.80million.
  In the year 2000/2001 our target was to reduce the amount of outstanding debt by 25% We met that target and have set ourselves the same challenge for 2001/2002.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if new benefit claimants living in the postcode areas laid out in Schedule 1 of the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001 will be required to visit a new Jobcentre Plus office rather than an existing Benefits Agency or Employment Service office; [12452]

  (2) at which office new benefit claimants residing in SW14 will have to attend for compulsory work-focused interviews with reference to Schedule 1 of the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001. [12453]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus will start to roll out nationally next year. At present, only people of working age living within the postcode areas that are served by Jobcentre Plus pathfinders or work-focused interview sites will be required to visit those offices to claim benefits. Other people will continue to make their claims through their local Benefits Agency office or Employment Service Jobcentre. These regulations are not being applied to people who live within the postcode area SW14.

  Sign Language
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what help is available for those who wish to pursue signing courses to help with the advancement of an understanding of sign language. [8903]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  Sign language courses are currently available through a range of FE colleges, universities and schools. There are currently four registered centres for the provision of British sign language training in Gloucestershire. Information about the availability of these courses can be obtained from Careers Services, Connexions Services and providers of information, advice and guidance for adult learners.

  The Learning and Skills Council has access to funds to meet or stimulate demand for learning, including signing. For provision that is not publicly funded, my Department can provide individuals with a career development loan covering up to 80 per cent. of the cost of their training.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  St. Barnabas Reading
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners,
  5W
  if he will make a statement on the financial consequences of the actions of the Diocese of Oxford with regard to St. Barnabas church in Reading. [10059]

  Mr. Bell
  The Diocese of Oxford is considering proposals for the pastoral reorganisation of the benefice and parish in which St. Barnabas is situated, but has not yet taken any action with respect to this church which has financial consequences.

  The Church Commissioners have a quasi-judicial role which they might have to exercise in respect of any proposals made by the diocese, so I am not able to take the matter further on the Floor of the House.

  Inter-faith Dialogue
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what spending the Commission has allocated for policies designed to encourage inter-faith dialogue. [10060]

  Mr. Bell
  None. The Church Commissioners' primary legal responsibility is to manage their assets for the support of the Church of England's serving and retired ministry.

  Inter-faith policy is not directly a matter for the commissioners.

  Works of Art
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what his policy is on the sale of works of art owned by the Church of England. [10061]

  Mr. Bell
  The majority of such works of art are owned by parish churches and cathedrals. Their disposal is governed by legislation.

  The commissioners own relatively few of the Church of England's works of art. They would consider any sale on its merits, in the light of their wider legal duties, and in consultation with interested parties.

  Child Care
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what money the commissioners have received for child care related matters in the last 12 months; and how it is used. [10062]

  Mr. Bell
  The commissioners' primary legal responsibility is the financial support of the Church of England's serving and retired ministry. They receive no funds for child care related matters.

  Historic Buildings (VAT)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Commissioners have made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about remission of VAT on repairs and conservation work to historic churches and chapels since 7 March. [10057]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church of England and other faiths have welcomed the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that churches 6W
  would be eligible to receive reimbursement equivalent to a reduction in VAT payable on the repair and maintenance of listed buildings from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent.

  The Church has been included in consultation over the implementation of the scheme. We understand this is imminent and that eligible claims will be considered for all work undertaken from 1 April 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  Tibet
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will meet the Chinese Vice-President during his visit to the UK this month; and if he will raise the issue of Tibet. [11153]

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he and other Ministers had with the Vice-President of China about the position of Tibet during his recent visit; and if he will make a statement. [12196]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]I met Vice-President Hu Jintao on 29 October. The main focus of our discussion was the international coalition against terrorism, but we also discussed a range of other issues including Tibet. Tibet was discussed in detail in a meeting on 30 October between the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, who was accompanying the Vice-President.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the holdings of anthrax by the Iraqi Government, with special reference to the particular strains held. [12583]

  The Prime Minister
  After years of denial, Iraq eventually declared to UNSCOM in 1995 that it had produced anthrax as a biological weapon fill for ballistic missile warheads and bombs. It declared it had possessed a number of different strains of the micro-organism. At the time, Iraq claimed to have already destroyed all of its BW weapons and agents. However, it did not provide the evidence, then or subsequently, to enable UNSCOM to verify this.

  Contingency Planning
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Prime Minister what sub-committees he has constituted to support the Civil Contingencies Committee in its review of the country's contingency planning arrangements. [12962]

  The Prime Minister
  I have directed that three new sub-committees be constituted to make recommendations within the remit of the Civil Contingencies Committee.

  The Civil Contingencies Committee is a long-standing committee. Its composition and terms of reference are set out together with those of three new sub-committees.

  Civil Contingencies Committee

  Composition:

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chairman).

  Others, including HM Treasury and the devolved Administrations, will be invited to attend, depending on the contingency.

  7W
  Terms of Reference:
  "To co-ordinate the preparation of plans for ensuring in an emergency the supplies and services essential to the life of the community; to keep these plans under regular review; and to supervise their prompt and effective implementation in specific emergencies."

  Sub committee on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear consequence management—CCC(CBRN)

  Composition:
  Minister of State with responsibility for crime reduction, policing and community safety—the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—(Chairman).

  Officials from:

  HM Treasury

  Home Office

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Ministry of Defence

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department of Health

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Northern Ireland Office

  Scotland Office

  Wales Office.

  The devolved Administrations are invited to attend as are others in accordance with their expertise, experience and responsibilities.

  Terms of reference:
  "To review contingency and other arrangements to protect the UK against the effects of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear means, particularly in the light of the terrorist attacks of 11 September."

  Sub committee on London resilience—CCC(LR)

  Composition:

  Minister for Local Government (Chairman)

  Officials from:

  HM Treasury

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Home Office

  Government Office for London.

  Others, including the Mayor of London, are invited to attend in accordance with their experience and expertise and in order to engage all responsible organisations in London.

  Terms of reference:
  "To review contingency arrangements for London, particularly in the light of the terrorist attacks of 11 September."

  Sub committee on UK resilience—CCC(UKR)

  Composition:

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chairman)

  Officials from:

  HM Treasury

  Home Office

  Ministry of Defence

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department of Health

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Northern Ireland Office

  Scotland Office

  Wales Office.

  8W
  Others, including the devolved Administrations, are invited to attend in accordance with their expertise, experience and responsibilities.

  Terms of reference:
  "To review contingency arrangements for key suppliers, services and other systems which support the life of the community, particularly in the light of the terrorist attacks of 11 September."

  Downing Street
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people are employed at(a) No. 10 Downing street and (b) the Cabinet Office; and how many were employed there on 1 May 1997. [7134]

  The Prime Minister
  On 1 September, there were 5,284 staff employed by the Cabinet Office, of whom 175 staff were on the payroll of No. 10. Of these Cabinet Office staff, 2,458 worked in the Government Offices for the Regions.

  Staff numbers of 1 May 1997 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Assassination
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what the Government's policy is on the assassination of enemy leaders. [11645]

  The Prime Minister
  Our policy is to act in accordance with UK and international law. One of our key objectives in the on-going military action in Afghanistan is to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes in implementation date he anticipates for the following projects owing to the change of ownership of Railtrack,(a) west coast main line in Scotland (i) overhead line equipment, (ii) electrical distribution systems, (iii) power supply systems and (iv) supervisory control and date acquisition system, (b) Edinburgh Waverley, (c) Glasgow Central, (d) Scottish Express routes, (e) automatic warning systems on Girvan to Stranraer, (f) Mossend interlocking renewal, (g) signal interlocking renewal at Glasgow Central, (h) service improvements throughout the Edinburgh urban routes, (i) new station at Beauty, (j) train protection on routes currently signalled using RETB in the Highland rural route and (k) Edinburgh Crossrail. [10396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack's administration should not itself affect project implementation. The administrator has taken over Railtrack's contractual commitments and the Government will ensure that he has sufficient funds to maintain the full operation of the network. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would expect any changes to contracts commitments to be agreed with the parties to the contracts and with the Strategic Rail Authority.
  9W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the decision to place Railtrack in administration on the value of local authority pension funds; [12239]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with local authorities on the impact of the Government's intervention in Railtrack on the value of local authority pensions funds. [12238]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: My Department is in regular touch with all the interested parties on the effectiveness of the regulations that govern local authorities' responsibility for the management and investment of their pension funds. The regulations are designed to ensure that pension fund portfolios are adequately diversified and so be able to withstand changes in market conditions.

  London Underground
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) at which discount rate used for the sensitivity analyses of the effect of changing discount rates on the relative levels of the public sector comparator and the bids for the London Underground PPPs a switching point or switching points were found; and if he will make a statement; [10464]

  Incidents, which were a cause of significant train delays and cancellations on Tuesday, 23 October 2001

  Time

  Location

  Nature of incident

  Delay (minutes)

  04.24

  Royal Oak

  Late engineering work. Hammersmith & City Line suspended between Edgware Road to Hammersmith. Circle Line stock was prevented from reaching the service area from Hammersmith depot.

  59

  04.59

  Rayners Lane

  No signalman. Service suspended on the Piccadilly Line between South Harrow to Uxbridge and Metropolitan Line between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Uxbridge.

  66

  05.18

  Blackfriars

  Late engineering work. District Line suspended between South Kensington and Whitechapel.

  28

  06.08

  Watford

  Alleged (subsequently unfounded) signal irregularity. Metropolitan Line suspended between Northwood and Watford.

  85

  08.06

  Canary Wharf

  Jubilee Line suspended between Canary Wharf and Stratford due to security alert (white powder found).

  65

  09.01

  Whitechapel

  Security alert. Suspensions on the District (Tower Hill to Whitechapel), Hammersmith & City (Plaistow to Liverpool Street) and East London Lines (Shoreditch to Canada Water), due to a suspected World War II bomb (found to be a pipe).

  75

  10.45

  Mansion House

  Fire alert. Westbound service on the Circle and District Lines delayed.

  20

  11.23

  Gloucester Road

  Fire alert. Westbound service on the Circle and District and Lines delayed.

  25

  11.48

  High Street Kensington

  Fire alert. Service suspended between High Street Kensington and Edgware Road on the Circle and District Lines.

  47

  15.24

  High Street Kensington

  Report of persons on track. District Line suspended between Earls Court and Edgware Road. Circle Line suspended.

  68

  16.50

  Stratford

  Signal failure. Eastbound service on Jubilee Line delayed.

  16

  17.23

  Moorgate

  Signal failure. Metropolitan, Circle and Hammersmith & City Lines suspended between Edgware Road and Aldgate.

  45

  18.09

  North Greenwich

  Signal failure. Jubilee Line suspended between London Bridge and Stratford.

  203

  18.19

  Ealing Broadway

  Security alert. Services suspended to North Acton (Central Line) and Turnham Green (District Line).

  34

  22.19

  London Bridge

  Security alert. Northern Line suspended between Kennington to Camden Town.

  22

  23.31

  Royal Oak

  Obstruction on track. Hammersmith & City Line suspended between Edgware Road and Hammersmith.

  45

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to replace the current fixed block signalling system on London Underground lines with
  10W
  (2) which discount rates were used for sensitivity analysis of the effect of changing discount rates on the relative levels of the public sector comparator and the bids for the London Underground PPPs; and if he will make a statement. [10472]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's plans for a publicly run, privately built tube will deliver around £l 3 billion of investment to improve the underground's infrastructure over the next 15 years. London Transport has yet to receive final bids on these plans. Consequently, it is too early to say whether changing the discount rate will lead to a switching point.

  When final bids are received they will be evaluated for value for money on a variety of financing and discounting scenarios.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many lines on the London Underground were subject to delayed or cancelled services on Tuesday 23 October; what the cause and length of the subsequent delay was for each line; and if more than one line was affected at any one time. [11559]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, which confirms that 10 lines (Central, Circle, District, East London, Hammersmith & City, Jubilee, Metropolitan, Northern, Piccadilly, Waterloo & City) were affected by delays (of at least 15 minutes) and/or cancellations. They have provided details of delays, their cause and duration as follows:

  more modern systems; if the moving block computerised system has been considered as an alternative; and when new systems are likely to be implemented. [11561]
  11W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground Ltd. to consider.

  London Underground has undertaken £84 million of signalling improvements since the Government announced plans for the modernisation of the tube on 20 May 1998. A further £27 million of improvements are being undertaken in this financial year.

  The tube modernisation plans will deliver a massive increase in the level of investment across the underground. Examples of signalling improvements to be delivered in the first period of the contracts include new signals on the Northern line to get the full benefit from the new trains; replacement of the Victoria line signals as part of a complete modernisation package; an upgrade of the Jubilee line signalling; a new signalling control centre on the Piccadilly line; improved signal reliability on the Bakerloo line; and greater signal capacity for the Waterloo and City line. In addition, all the signalling on the Circle, District and Metropolitan lines will be renewed in the next 10 years.

  The signalling improvements to be delivered are specified in terms of the outputs required; it is for bidders to decide what type of technology will best achieve the necessary results.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many delays on London Underground were reported to have been caused by problems with(a) track and signalling and (b) rolling stock in the latest year that figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [11560]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, which defines delays as intervals of 15 minutes or more, which is the threshold for granting refunds to passengers under the customer charter. In 2000–01, the latest complete year for which data on delays are available, delays were attributed as follows:(a) track on 236 occasions, and signals on 662 occasions; (b) rolling stock on 569 occasions.

  Rail Upgrades (North-East)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans and programmes there were for(a) the upgrade of the east coast main line and (b) for upgrades and extensions of rail lines in the north-east of England as at 1 October. [10924]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) announced on 14 September that they had allocated £17.5 million for development work for phase two of the project to upgrade the east coast main line. The SRA is also considering a number of applications for funding from the rail passengers partnership scheme including provision of passenger services over the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line and to reopen the Leamside line.

  The SRA intends to submit its strategic plan to Ministers by the end of November which will set out its priorities for enhancement to the network.

  Local Parks
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to ensure everyone has access to local parks. [10774]
  12W
  Ms Keeble
  We have established the urban green spaces task force to assist my Department in developing policies and proposals for the future of parks, play areas and green spaces. Ensuring that people have easy access to their local parks and other green spaces is an issue which is being considered and for which we will develop proposals.

  County Hall
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what amount is outstanding from the sale of County hall, London SE1 to the Shiryam group; how long it has been outstanding; if interest is being charged, and when the balance will be paid in full. [11199]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The contract for the sale of County hall provided for a deferred sum of £10 million to be paid to the London residuary body from April 1996, subject to the full sum being paid by 2012. Following the winding up of the London residuary body on 29 March 1996, the London borough of Bromley inherited the remaining rights and liabilities in respect of County hall, including those in relation to the payment of this sum. I understand that, in line with the contractual terms, no interest is due and no amount has yet been paid to Bromley.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what salary the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority will receive. [11220]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is set out in the press release issued by my Department on 24 October about this appointment, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Jubilee Line
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many signal failures were reported on the Jubilee line for the five days from Monday 22 October to Friday 26 October inclusive. [11558]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from London Underground Ltd. that there were seven signal failures during this period. The recurring problem has been identified and corrected. Its cause is under investigation. Recovery from signal failures on Monday 22 and Tuesday 23 was hampered by a passenger taken ill on a train and a security alert respectively.

  Local Government (City of Westminster)
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish the research into public attitudes to local government structures in the City of Westminster. [11644]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are currently editing the report of this research for publication, and will issue it in due course. I will write to the hon. Member when the report is published, and place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what his latest estimate is of the total cost of completing the Crossrail project; [11654]

  (2) what proportion of funding for Crossrail will be required from the private sector. [11653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The assumption in the 10-year plan is that construction of Crossrail is to be fully financed by the private sector. In advance of detailed economic appraisal of the options it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of the project. Almost £3.5 billion was included in the 10-year-plan as a broad indication of the cost of the infrastructure and new rolling stock. Public support is assumed to be provided in the form of subsequent revenue support, but will depend on the precise project and on negotiations with the rail industry.

  A total of £154 million of public funding has been allocated, jointly to the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London, for preparation costs of the project in 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  White Horse (Folkestone)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from English Nature on the proposal for a white horse on the downs above Folkestone since the end of the inquiry into the proposal. [12866]

  Ms Keeble
  We have received no further representations on this case from English Nature since the inquiry.

  Greater London Authority
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what was the(a) percentage real-terms increase in the precept on average domestic rates by the Greater London Council in each year from 1975 to its abolition and (b) real-terms increase in the precept on band D council tax by the Greater London Authority since its creation; and if he will make a statement; [12579]

  (2) what was (a) the percentage increase in the precept on average domestic rates by the Greater London Council in each year from 1975 to its abolition and (b) the increase in the precept on band D council tax by the Greater London Authority since is creation; and if he will make a statement. [12578]

  Mr. Byers
  The available information is given in the tables. We shall this week be laying regulations to ensure that percentage cash increases in precepts, including the Greater London Authority's, will be shown clearly on council tax bills from next year.

  Greater London Council

  Total rate levied pence in the £

  Cash increase percentage

  Real terms1 percentage

  1974–75

  8.90

  3—

  3—

  1975–76

  16.20

  82.0

  45.4

  1976–77

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1977–782

  16.10

  3—

  3—

  1978–79

  16.10

  0.0

  -9.9

  14W

  Greater London Council

  Total rate levied pence in the £

  Cash increase percentage

  Real terms1 percentage

  1979–80

  17.80

  10.6

  -5.3

  1980–81

  19.40

  9.0

  -7.8

  1981–82

  22.90

  18.0

  7.8

  1982–83

  32.70

  42.8

  33.5

  1983–84

  37.66

  15.2

  10.2

  1984–85

  34.69

  -7.9

  -12.5

  1985–86

  33.74

  -2.7

  -7.8

  1 Adjusted using the GDP deflator at market prices

  2 Figures for 1977–78 onwards are taken from a different publication from those for earlier years and so may be on a slightly different basis

  3 Not available

  4 Not applicable, as the Greater London Authority did not exist in 1999–2000

  Sources:

  DOE and Welsh Office "Rates and Rateable Values in England and Wales", 1974–75 and 1975–76 editions

  CIPFA "Financial, General & Rating Statistics", 1977–78 to 1981–82 editions

  CIPFA "Financial and General Statistics" 1982–83 to 1985–86 editions

  BR returns for 2000–01 and 2001–02

  Greater London Authority

  Council tax per band D property (£)

  Cash increase (percentage)

  Real terms1 (percentage)

  2000–01

  122.98

  2—

  2—

  2000–02

  150.88

  22.7

  19.7

  1 Adjusted using the GDP deflator at market prices

  2 Figures for 1977–78 onwards are taken from a different publication from those for earlier years and so may be on a slightly different basis

  Sources:

  DOE and Welsh Office "Rates and Rateable Values in England and Wales", 1974–75 and 1975–76 editions

  CIPFA "Financial, General & Rating Statistics", 1977–78 to 1981–82 editions

  CIPFA "Financial and General Statistics", 1982–83 to 1985–86 editions

  BR returns for 2000–01 and 2001–02

  Regional Planning
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) further to the publication of PPG 11, what plans his Department has to increase the scope of regional planning; and if he will make a statement; [12572]

  (2) what plans his Department has to issue new or revised national planning policy guidance in the next 12 months; if he will list the new guidance notes; and if he will make a statement. [12573]

  Mr. Byers
  I shall be issuing a Green Paper shortly setting out proposals for comprehensive reform of the planning system.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to issue new or revised regional planning policy guidance in the next 12 months; if he will list the new guidance notes; and if he will make a statement. [12574]

  Mr. Byers
  Regional planning guidance is issued by the Government offices. Since November 2000, revised regional planning policy guidance has been issued for East Anglia (RPG 6), the south-east (RPG 9), the
  15W
  south-west (RPG 10) and Yorkshire and the Humber (RPG 12). Over the next 12 months, new or revised regional planning policy guidance is due to be issued for the east midlands (RPG 8), the north-east (RPG 1) and the north-west (RPG 13). Draft revised regional planning guidance (RPG 11) for the west midlands, as prepared by the west midlands local government association, will be published for consultation very shortly.

  Elections
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to increase turnout in(a) London Assembly and mayoral elections and (b) European parliamentary elections. [12581]

  Mr. Byers
  As the Electoral Commission stated in its report on the 2001 general election:"responsibility for re-engaging the electorate with the democratic process must rest in large part with the political parties".

  However, our programme for modernising electoral processes is aimed at improving access to electoral services for all elections. As a first step in October, we, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association, invited local authorities to apply to run innovative electoral pilot projects—including all-postal voting and online voting—at next May's local elections. We will consider how to take forward any lessons learned from those pilots in the London Assembly and mayoral elections and in the European parliamentary elections. The Electoral Commission is also examining the underlying reasons for low turnout and we will consider any conclusions they reach very carefully.

  3G Technology
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the(a) Treasury and (b) Department of Trade and Industry concerning 3G mobile phone licences. [12570]

  Mr. Byers
  This Department had no discussion with either the Treasury or the Department of Trade and Industry over the awarding of the 3G mobile phone licences to the five successful bidders. Officials in this Department liaised with officials in the Department of Trade arid Industry over the production of the information memorandum sent to prospective participants in the 3G auction to ensure that it contained accurate details of the planning regime as it applied to telecommunications apparatus.

  From time to time, officials in this Department liaise with officials in the Department of Trade and Industry on specific licence conditions, such as conditions requiring operators to explore the possibility of mast sharing.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of the increase in demand for additional mobile phone masts that will result from the implementation of 3G technology; and if he will make a statement. [12569]

  Mr. Byers
  This is a matter for the individual telecommunications operators. However, the operators are fully aware of the importance we attach to keeping the 16W
  number of masts to the minimum practicable, for example through mast sharing, and to ensuring that those which are needed are designed and sited with sensitivity and care.

  Schooling (Hackney)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role he has played in the provision of schooling in the London borough of Hackney. [12580]

  Mr. Byers
  The provision of schooling is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. My Department pays revenue and capital grants to local authorities for a range of local services including the provision of schooling.

  Loft Conversions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to require planning permission to be obtained for loft conversions; and if he will make a statement. [12457]

  Ms Keeble
  Currently, loft conversions may or may not require planning applications depending on the circumstances of the case and the relevant permitted development rights. We will set out proposals for the future in our planning Green Paper.

  Park Homes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation in relation to park homes; and if he will make a statement. [12454]

  Ms Keeble
  Changes to the legislation relating to park homes were included in the recommendations of the park homes working party. We have consulted on, and are considering, the working party's recommendations. We hope to be able to announce our conclusions on this shortly.

  Motorcyclists
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what restrictions apply to the wearing of black visors by motorcyclists. [12249]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Visors worn by motorcyclists on a road must either comply with British Standard BS4110:1979 (as amended) or with UN ECE Regulation 22.05. These standards allow visors to have a moderate tint which allows at least 50 per cent. of the light to pass through.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many publications were issued by her Department in each of the last four years. [11833]
  17W
  Clare Short
  Since 1997 we have published all our major strategy documents, including all country and institutional strategy papers, as well as major consultation papers and speeches. Our publishing output has therefore expanded considerably.

  Category

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  Total

  White papers

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Country strategy papers

  4

  10

  12

  18

  44

  Institutional strategy papers

  5

  9

  6

  2

  22

  Consultation papers (IDTs)

  —

  1

  8

  —

  9

  Target strategy papers (TSPs)

  1

  8

  —

  —

  9

  Background briefings

  15

  6

  3

  3

  27

  Speech booklets

  1

  8

  11

  8

  28

  Issues of Developments magazine

  2

  4

  4

  4

  14

  We also produce a publications catalogue which is updated every six months and lists the majority of departmental publications produced since 1997, together with information on how to obtain copies. A copy of the latest edition (October 2001) has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Belize
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, columns 41–42W, on Belize, if she will place in the Library copies of the documents which recorded the conversation between her Permanent Secretary and the senior partner of KPMG on 18 May. [11615]

  Clare Short
  The conversation was confidential to the parties concerned.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date her Department obtained legal advice on the validity and applicability of the 1982 Britain-Belize Investor Protection Treaty for the Public Investment Companies with regard to the study commissioned by her Department to review the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes; what the conclusion of this legal advice was; on what date this advice was passed to the Government of Belize; and if she will place in the Library a copy of this advice. [11602]

  Clare Short
  Counsel's advice was received on 7 September and passed to the Government of Belize on 13 September. The advice is confidential to the UK and Belize Governments.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department requested KPMG to assess whether the 1982 Britain-Belize Investor Protection Treaty applied to the public investment companies during the study commissioned by her Department to review the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes; when this request was made by her Department; what the conclusion of this assessment was; and if she will place in the Library a copy of KPMG's assessment. [11604]
  18W
  Due to the disproportionate cost involved we are not able to provide the full level of details requested. However within the main categories we have produced:

  Clare Short
  The request was implicit in the terms of reference for the study KPMG was contracted to undertake on 11 July 2000. KPMG's conclusion on this assessment was recorded in their report on the study. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 531W, concerning the confidentiality of the KPMG report.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 13 July 2001,Official Report, column 653W, on Belize, if she will place in the Library (a) a copy of the correspondence of 25 August 2000 in which her Department was informed by KPMG that KPMG were the external auditors of the Belize Bank and (b) copies of responses made by her Department to KPMG following the receipt of this correspondence. [11611]

  Clare Short
  A copy of the letter dated 25 August 2000 to DFID will be placed in the Library. The enclosures referred to in that letter are confidential to the parties concerned. No written response was made to this letter.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what meetings her Department has held since 3 August with the Government of Belize to discuss progress on the Commonwealth debt initiative and the effect of tax exemptions and public investment companies on pro-poor programmes; where each of these meetings took place; and which departments of the Government of Belize attended. [11603]

  Clare Short
  Following my decision on CDI, referred to in my answer to question [6605] and sent to you during the recess, I met with Prime Minister Said Musa in London on 22 October to discuss this and other matters relevant to Belize.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects her Department supports in India; and what the amount of grants is in each case. [11395]

  Clare Short
  All project support to India is provided in the form of grants. The table provides details of active projects and total financial commitment.
  19W

  £

  SI Number

  Projects

  Total commitment

  Andhra Pradesh

  1

  Andhra Pradesh Energy Efficiency Project

  42,700,000

  2

  Andhra Pradesh Power Sector Reform Project

  31,500,000

  3

  Andhra Pradesh Economic Restructuring Project

  5,300,000

  4

  Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project

  45,543,000

  5

  Andhra Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor

  94,413,000

  6

  Impact and Expenditure Review for Government of Andhra Pradesh Project

  600,000

  7

  Andhra Pradesh Governance Reform Project

  5,900,000

  Karnataka

  8

  Karnataka Watershed Development Project

  14,758,000

  9

  IISD/MYRADA—Project on developing appreciative inquiry technique

  105,052

  10

  Western Ghats Forestry Project

  23,294,000

  11

  OXFAM—Western Ghats Parallel Project

  173,643

  West Bengal

  12

  West Bengal Sexual Health Project

  4,780,000

  13

  Eastern India Rainfed Farming Project

  8,091,000

  14

  Calcutta Slum Improvement Project

  12,620,000

  15

  West Bengal Reproductive and Child Health Project

  2,990,000

  16

  ADB—Calcutta Environment Improvement Project

  28,300,000

  17

  Christian Aid and Churches Auxiliary for Social Action Project

  1,200,000

  18

  Enhancing Pro-poor Governance in West Bengal and Bihar

  212,000

  Madhya Pradesh

  19

  Support to Self Employed Womens Association

  14,000

  20

  Madhya Pradesh Public Resource Management Project

  350,000

  21

  Western India Rainfed Farming Project Phase II

  27,920,000

  22

  Bihar—Madhya Pradesh Tribal Development Project

  7,000,000

  23

  Natural Resources Management Project in the Bundelkhund Region

  1,170,000

  24

  Indore Financial Services for the Poor Project

  79,000

  Orissa

  25

  Western Orissa Rural Livelihoods Project

  32,750,000

  26

  IFAD Tribal Development Project

  25,000

  27

  Orissa Power Sector Aid

  67,000,000

  28

  Hirakund Rehabilitation Project

  21,400,000

  29

  Orissa Gridco (Power Sector Reform) Restructuring Project

  6,000,000

  30

  Energy: Orissa Rural Community Electric Supplies (CENDERET project)

  1,000,000

  31

  Energy: Dadri Dry Ash Disposal Project

  1,700.000

  32

  Orissa Power Sector Reform: Field Management

  4,013,037

  33

  Orissa Public Sector Reforms Programme

  19,000,000

  34

  Orissa Budgetary Aid—Design Phase

  25,000

  35

  Orissa Health and Family Welfare Project Phase

  3 3,827,000

  36

  Orissa Social Marketing—PSI

  2,270,000

  37

  Orissa Urban Reproductive Health Project

  4,997,780

  38

  Cuttack Urban Slum Improvement Project

  12,720,000

  39

  Orissa cyclone rehabilitation initiatives

  57,848,850

  National

  40

  ILO-International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour

  2,860,000

  41

  Revised National Tuberculosis Project

  20,570,000

  42

  WHO Operational Research on Tuberculosis

  719,370

  43

  World Bank Trust Fund

  4,000,000

  44

  ADB-Poverty Trust Fund

  20,000,000

  45

  CARE: Credit and Saving for Household Enterprises Project

  9,852,401

  46

  Haryana power Sector Reform and Restructuring Project

  15,000,000

  47

  Indo/UK collaboration on Oil Seed crops Phase II

  2,000,000

  48

  Development of Watershed Guidelines Project

  60,000

  49

  Forestry Training Project

  2,020,000

  50

  Integrated Coastal zone management training Project

  1,000,000

  51

  Private Sector Forestry Project

  114,000

  52

  Rural Development Programme Support Fund

  100,000

  53

  Education: Shiksha Karmi Project Phase II

  20,140,000

  54

  Education: Lok Jumbish Project

  31,423,000

  55

  Pulse Polio Project

  40,813,000

  56

  Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme

  27,000,000

  57

  STD: Truck Drivers (Support to HIV/AIDS programme targeted at the Highway community)

  4,500,000

  58

  Partnership for Sexual Health Project (Support to HIV/AIDS Programme)

  28,180,000

  59

  Gender Centre

  2,000,000

  60

  Public Administration training project

  4,650,000

  61

  Training Development of Indian Police

  1,180,000

  20W 21W

  £

  SI Number

  Projects

  Total commitment

  62

  BBC Marshall Plan for the Mind Project

  1,217,825

  63

  Small Industries Development Banking of India support project

  16,585,000

  64

  Community Ophthalmology Blindness programme support

  1,119,754

  65

  Environment and Poverty Link

  200,000

  66

  Health Systems policy development support

  800,000

  67

  Management Development for senior urban public health officials

  1,460,000

  68

  UNDP Monitoring and Evaluation Project

  60,000

  69

  Small Grants Scheme

  212,000

  70

  Water and sanitation Programme-South Asia

  2,520,000

  71

  Credit and Micro-enterprise support project

  500,000

  72

  UNICEF: Child Environment Improvement Project

  17,500,000

  73

  District Primary Education Project (AP+WB+Orissa)

  166,416,000

  Other

  74

  Himachal Pradesh Forestry Project

  6,399,000

  75

  Cochin Urban Poverty Reduction Project

  11,947,000

  76

  Natural Resources Management Project in the Western Himalayas

  182,000

  Tajikistan
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the extent of poverty and malnutrition in Tajikistan; and what aid has been offered to Tajikistan by the United Kingdom(a) directly and (b) through the programmes of the EU and United Nations. [10923]

  Clare Short
  Reliable data on Tajikistan are scarce. It is one of the poorest countries of the former Soviet Union, with rates of acute malnutrition ranging between 6.4 and 10.3 per cent. in different areas.

  Since 1994, the United Kingdom has offered a total of £29.7 million to Tajikistan. Of this, £1 million has been through DFID's direct programme. DFID has also channelled £9.5 million into humanitarian assistance. £11.8 million has been provided through the European Commission, mainly to ECHO (EC Humanitarian Office) programmes. £1 million has been allocated to ECHO this year. £1.2 million has been offered to Tajikistan through programmes of the United Nations.

DEFENCE

  Harrier Pilots
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total requirement is for trained Harrier pilots in the(a) Navy and (b) RAF; and how many there are at present in each case. [11578]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The naval requirement for Sea Harrier pilots (Commander and below) as at 1 October 2001 was 64, with an authorised increase to 66 planned for 1 April 2003. The current naval strength (Commander and below) is 44. The Royal Air Force requires 85 Harrier pilots to fill Harrier GR7-specific flying and flying related ground appointments (Wing Commander and below). It has a current strength of 102 Harrier pilots. A number of these are filling career broadening posts such as staff appointments, or are serving as qualified flying instructors or with the RAF Aerobatic Team, and some are on exchange postings.

  Retention
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve retention rates within the armed forces. [10067]

  Mr. Ingram
  Armed forces retention is being tackled as a matter of the highest priority. Our aim is to maintain good levels of retention through policies that genuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families, both at home and on deployment. A key outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) was a widespread recognition of the need for an Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy (AFOPS) as part of the 'Policy for People'. This was introduced in April 2000 to give more emphasis to personal issues. The SDR 'Policy for People' included some of the following aims: better terms and conditions; improvements to pay and allowances: better quality of training; addressing concerns about family life; ensuring equality of opportunity and provision of better accommodation. All these have now been embodied in the AFOPS Action Plan.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is to improve the career prospects and retention of young service men and women; and if he will make a statement. [10570]

  Mr. Ingram
  A wide range of challenging careers are offered to both young men and women joining the services. We need over 25,000 high quality, well motivated recruits each year to maintain the correct balance of age and experience; and the need for and success of training is therefore crucial to the continuing operational success of our armed forces. The Defence Training Review, completed earlier this year, emphasised the importance of transferable qualifications to both the recruitment and the retention of personnel in the armed forces. An earlier scheme to come out of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) was the 'Learning Forces Initiative' which provides opportunities for service personnel to gain transferable skills and recognised civilian qualifications, not only improving and enriching their service careers but also preparing them for their second careers. The armed forces are also working closely with a number of key authorities to deliver increased recognition of service education and training leading to academic, vocational and professional qualifications. In
  23W
  summary, the armed forces provide attractive career prospects by offering: high quality training; accreditation of training wherever possible, against nationally recognised standards; a wide range of professionally demanding jobs, with many offering significant amounts of responsibility early on in careers; good promotion opportunities; encouragement to serve to age 40 or beyond; and provision of education facilities and grants to assist with the cost of education.

  Armed forces retention is being tackled as a matter of the highest priority. Our aim is to maintain good levels of retention through policies that genuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families, both at home and on deployment. A key outcome of the Strategic Defence Review was a widespread recognition of the need for an Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy (AFOPS) as part of the 'Policy for People'. This was introduced in April 2000 to give more emphasis to personnel issues. The SDR 'Policy for People' included some of the following aims: better terms and conditions; improvements to pay and allowances; better quality of training; addressing concerns about family life; ensuring equality of opportunity and provision of better accommodation. New initiatives are under way in all of these areas.

  Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the report on the armed forces pension scheme will be published. [10108]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 October 2001, Official Report, column 319W.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [10837]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]The Ministry of Defence has approximately 250 significant antiques, such as clocks and furniture, together with many more having little intrinsic value but some historic interest to the Department. The Department also has approximately 800 works of fine art, together with many more miscellaneous items of little intrinsic value, such as photographs, reproductions, maps and manuscripts. The Department has no stocks of fine wines. None of these assets has been sold over the last three years, and there are no plans to sell any over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review. The terms of bequest of many of the most important pieces prohibit disposal. Additionally, the Department is responsible for the many Regimental Museums throughout the country, whose collections are open to the public, and for minor collections of publicly owned works of art, such as the Sandhurst Collection, which are displayed at the Royal Military Academy.

  Debt of Honour Register
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up website giving a debt of honour register similar to that on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website, to provide personal and service details and places of commemoration for those armed forces personnel who have served and died for their country since the second world war. [12666]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no plans to set up a website to commemorate those service personnel who have died since the end of the Second World War. However, the subject is being considered as an additional initiative which could be undertaken in collaboration with the proposals to establish a new memorial to armed forces personnel who have died in the post-war years, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 10 November 2000,Official Report, column 414W.

  Challenger 2
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Challenger 2 main battle tanks failed to complete Exercise Saif Sareea 2 because of mechanical or technical problems. [11636]

  Mr. Hoon
  A total of 65 Challenger 2 were deployed on Exercise Saif Sareea 2. The exercise was designed, deliberately, to test the military equipment and personnel deployed on it. Its duration, complexity and the very harsh environmental conditions in which it was conducted combined to offer an excellent training opportunity, enabling us to identify, under realistic conditions, the challenges we might face in future operations. Complex equipment requires routine maintenance to ensure continued peak performance, resulting in temporary periods of non-availability. This is entirely to be expected for deployments of this nature and represents an integral part of the training process.

  Experience gained from the early stages of the exercise in logistically sustaining the Challenger 2 fleet required some rescoping of the exercise programme to ensure that the required supply of spares could be sustained. Against this revised programme of activity, the average availability of Challenger 2 was in excess of 80 per cent. and would have been higher if there had not been a delay in a routine supply of track spares.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected life is of airfilters used in Challenger 2 main battle tanks in desert conditions. [11638]

  Dr. Moonie
  The designed life of the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank air filter was 14 hours when used in extreme desert conditions. Work is currently in hand to determine whether the expected life of the air filter needs to be adjusted in the light of recent experience gained from operating the tank in desert conditions. Stock levels will be adjusted accordingly.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cost of converting Challenger 2 main battle tanks for desert conditions. [11637]

  Dr. Moonie
  Two options have been investigated for the desertisation of Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks (CR2 MBT). The first involves a modification package,
  25W
  and would cost approximately £140,000 per tank. The second option, which involves remodelling the main engine compartment, is based on the Omani CR2 MBT. This would cost approximately £250,000 per tank.

  Army Foundation College
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision will be made on the establishment of an Army Foundation College in Dundee; and where the other proposed sites are for this establishment. [12186]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]The Army needs to attract good quality young people by providing excellent education and work-related training in good facilities. The Army Foundation College (AFC) at Harrogate in Yorkshire provides this, but is currently oversubscribed. The Army are working on new proposals for a second more flexible college for the provision of improved facilities for a range of abilities and age groups. Various alternatives are under study, including establishing a second AFC delivered through partnership. If it were decided to pursue a second college by way of a Public Private Partnership, it would be announced through the Official Journal of the European Community in the normal way. It would then be open for an proposals for the college, including its location, to be put forward for consideration as part of the competitive process. We anticipate a variety of sites, including existing Ministry of Defence and other locations, to be proposed.

  A decision on the way forward is unlikely before next year.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ministerial decisions were made where authority for the same derived from the royal prerogative in the most recent calendar month for which information is available. [9369]

  Dr. Moonie
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised nor could it be practicable to do so.

  Pharmaceutical Plants (Security)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that plants which manufacture antibiotics for the treatment of anthrax and other biological or chemical weapons are given enhanced security. [10589]

  Mr. Ingram
  The level of security in place at commercial establishments that manufacture antibiotics and other agents to counter biological or chemical weapons is based on the threat pertaining to that establishment. In the first instance, security is a matter for the owners/operators of the establishments. Beyond that, security rests with the police who can, if they feel the threat is beyond their capacity, call on established procedures to augment security, for example, through military assistance, at such establishments. The security of such facilities is also under active review as a result of the events of 11 September.
  26W

  Role 3 Field Hospital
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much funding he is providing for the establishment of a Role 3 field hospital in partnership with the Netherlands; and if he will make a statement. [11781]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are not making any funding available specifically to establish a Role 3 field hospital in partnership with the Netherlands. We have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Netherlands setting out arrangements for the joint provision of an integrated Role 3 medical unit on future peacekeeping, peace enforcement or humanitarian relief operations in which both nations wish to participate. The aim is to make sensible and cost-effective use of valuable medical resources and avoid duplication of medical support. Existing resources will be used and the integrated Role 3 unit will be formed only when required. Medical personnel of both nations will undertake training and exercises together when possible to develop and foster interoperability.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much time HMS Ocean spent in dock undergoing repairs, before being handed over to the Royal Navy; how much time she has spent in service at sea, since she was handed over to the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [11755]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period between HMS Ocean's launch in October 1995 and her handover to the Royal Navy in March 1999, she spent some 15 weeks in dock undergoing repairs. Since then, she has been available for programming, either at sea or in harbour, for a total of 904 days.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Gurkha reinforcement companies in the British Army and the units to which they are assigned. [12617]

  Mr. Ingram
  Gurkha Reinforcement Companies are currently serving with the 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment in Colchester, 1 Royal Irish based in Canterbury and 1 Highlanders in Edinburgh. In addition, there are formed Gurkha units serving with 10 Transport Regiment, 30 Signal Regiment, 36 Engineer Regiment and in training establishments at Sandhurst and Brecon.

  Suez Campaign Medal
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce a medal for the Suez campaign; and if he will make a statement on how veterans of that conflict may be recognised for their contribution. [12629]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service in the Suez Campaign, the Anglo/French Landings which took place in late 1956 as Operation Musketeer, was recognised by the institution of the Naval General Service Medal for Royal Navy personnel and the General Service Medal for Army and Royal Air Force personnel, with clasp Near East. There are no plans to institute a medal for service in the Canal Zone during the early 1950s.

  Glencorse Barracks
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funds will be made available to maintain Glencorse Barracks pending announcement of plans for its reuse. [12188]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Although the Army's Initial Training function based at Glencorse Barracks will transfer to Catterick during 2002, the Recruit Selection Centre will remain at Glencorse and will be funded to maintain its activity.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to house an infantry battalion in Glencorse Barracks; and when this will take place; [12189]

  (2) if the options for Glencorse Barracks include stationing an infantry battalion there. [12185]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The Army's Initial Training function based at Glencorse Barracks will transfer to the School of Infantry at Catterick during 2002. The Recruit Selection Centre will, however, remain at Glencorse and it is the intention to retain a further Army presence there, although the extent of this has not yet been established.

  Gibraltar Regiment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to celebrate 300 years of British rule in Gibraltar. [13011]

  Dr. Moonie
  At the present time the Ministry of Defence has made no plans to celebrate the 300th Anniversary of British rule in Gibraltar and has not received any requests for participation in any events which are being organised.

  Chinooks
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Chinooks were unserviceable during Exercise Saif Sareea 2; and for what period of time. [11747]

  Mr. Hoon
  The eight Chinook helicopters deployed on Exercise Saif Sareea 2 performed well in very testing environmental conditions. Their availability varied throughout the exercise. This was in part affected by engineering instructions issued from the UK that required non-exercise related maintenance on a number of air frames.

  The average daily availability rate during the main period of the exercise was around 70 per cent.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Ovine BSE (Research)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis she was convinced that the information concerning tests to establish the presence of BSE in sheep, presented to her Department by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist on 17 October would leak; who she was convinced would leak the information; and if she will make a statement. [10607]
  28W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The theoretical possibility of BSE in sheep is an issue of great sensitivity, generating widespread public interest. In light of the information a scheduled meeting of SEAC was—by the decision of its chairman—cancelled at short notice. This in itself was likely to stimulate further interest. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the possibility of leaks will be much higher and their impact more serious.

  A press release was issued on 17 October about what we knew for certain. This was done to avoid the risk of information on a serious issue being presented incorrectly and piecemeal. Nor did we want to exacerbate public concern—in a situation of uncertainty—by giving the impression that the Government were withholding important information.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the results of the inquiries into the errors made by the Institute of Animal Health in relation to BSE in sheep will be made public. [9914]

  Margaret Beckett
  Urgent and independent scientific inquiries have been established already. We will not know the full facts until they have reported. We will continue to keep the House and the public informed of developments.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to conduct further research into whether BSE is present in the national sheep flock; and if she will made a statement. [9918]

  Margaret Beckett
  We will carry out a thorough review of the full range of scientific studies currently being undertaken in this area. In doing so we will take account of work that is being conducted elsewhere in Europe and the views of the Food Standards Agency and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. Findings will be made available to the House.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what inquiries have been commissioned into the results of the Institute of Animal Health in relation to BSE in sheep; and if she will made a statement; [9921]

  (2) if she will establish an independent inquiry into the failure of the research into whether BSE is present in sheep. [9912]

  Margaret Beckett
  Following the receipt of the results of DNA testing by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist on Wednesday 17 October, an independent risk assessment company was immediately commissioned to perform a detailed audit of the Institute of Animal Health research into BSE and sheep; including how the relevant samples were stored and handled.

  Additionally, the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) has been asked to undertake to a longer time scale a rigorous assessment of the chain of custody arrangements for the IAH experiment.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will give details of all work commissioned or undertaken by(a) the Government and (b) its agencies into BSE in sheep since

  29W
  May 1997, stating, in each case (i) which organisations have been involved in which tasks and (ii) what costs or payments have been incurred [10603]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: A list of all research projects on TSEs, funded by UK funding bodies, is available on the MRC website at http://www.mrc/ac.uk/tse-2c.htm. This includes details of duration and cost of projects and the research organisations involved, as well as abstracts of the research projects.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to achieve faster results from tests to establish whether sheep have been infected with BSE. [10615]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: Work is being undertaken to develop molecular profiling techniques so that a rapid, initial indication of whether BSE is likely to be present can be obtained. This will allow screening of the material that is to be tested using conventional strain typing in mice. The latter method, which is the test that has been used to date to distinguish between scrapie and BSE is very slow, taking up to two years to complete.

  Of course this area will be examined as part of the thorough review of the range of scientific studies currently being undertaken into BSE and sheep; as I announced on 22 October.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish a Bill to enable the Government to take powers to ensure the removal, from the national sheep flock, of genotypes of sheep susceptible to scrapie; and if she will make a statement. [10597]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The Bill was published on 25 October.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to eliminate scrapie from the national sheep flock; and if she will make a statement. [10609]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The Government launched a national scrapie plan for Great Britain in July. This will breed resistance to scrapie into the national flock.

  The plan has initially been targeted at producers of purebred, pedigree breeding sheep registered with a recognised breed society. We are currently consulting about rapid extension of the plan to the remainder of the pure breeding flock, including special action for scrapie-infected flocks. We are considering other ways of speeding up implementation of the plan and we recently announced our intention to introduce a Bill that would allow the Government to take powers to remove from the breeding flock, on a compulsory basis, sheep with genotypes that make them susceptible to scrapie.

  We are also consulting on ways to encourage the reporting of scrapie when it occurs., and next year we will be undertaking a survey to gain more knowledge of the incidence of scrapie, using rapid testing methods.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what would be the estimated net cost to public funds of drawing down all EU agrimonetary compensation packages currently available. [8908]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: There is approximately £55 million of agrimonetary compensation currently available for the arable sector. The net cost to the UK Exchequer of drawing down this sum would be approximately £47 million.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effect on the environment of dioxin veltase associated with the disposal of carcases during the foot and mouth outbreak. [7868]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Dioxins have been measured in the air and the environment around some of the pyres used to dispose of carcases during the foot and mouth outbreak. All this monitoring data will be reported on the Department of Health website.

  Analysis of the air measurements and modelling by the Environment Agency suggest that earlier estimates of dioxin emissions were likely to have been overestimates and to have erred on the precautionary side.

  Levels of dioxins measured in soil, herbage and food were mostly similar to levels at control farms not affected by pyres. Some chemical analysis of ash from pyres has been performed. Levels of dioxins were within the range found in urban soils.

  The Food Standards Agency considers that the available results show that the pyres have posed no additional risk to health through the food supply.

  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to give financial assistance to the Youth Hostel Association to offset the impact of foot and mouth disease. [11186]

  Alun Michael
  We are well aware of the impact that foot and mouth disease and the measures to control it have had on the Youth Hostel Association's finances. I and the Minister with responsibility for tourism, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, have met representatives of the YHA to discuss their difficulties and possible sources of help. We have recently announced a change to the guidelines for the Business Recovery Fund to clarify that individual hostels, if their applications meet the Fund criteria, may apply for assistance in their own right. In the light of the recommendations of the rural task force which I chair, published on 18 October, we are considering what further help might be made available.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to tighten controls on the importation of meat products. [7872]
  31W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]My Department is co-ordinating action across Government to improve our ability to detect and prevent illegal imports. Improved publicity for travellers has been introduced. Posters have been placed at main airports and information is being provided by the travel industry and FCO posts abroad. National legislation has been amended to make it easier for local authorities to act when illegally imported meat is found and the Food Standards Agency are encouraging local authorities to ensure that checks for illegal imports are part of their routine inspections of food premises. An improved system of sharing and analysing of information has been introduced to enable enforcement bodies to target action more effectively. We are also looking at other ways in which enforcement of import controls may be improved.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of by incineration; and if she will make a statement. [8287]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]Our priority is to meet the requirement of the Landfill Directive to divert biodegradable municipal waste away from landfill by maximising recycling and composting and minimising the need for incineration and landfill. In order to achieve this the Government have set tough statutory targets under best value for local authorities to double the amount of household waste recycled by 2003–04 and treble it by 2005–06, and will set further targets for later years.

  Veterinary Medicinal Products
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on European Commission proposals to reclassify veterinary medicinal products as prescription only medicines. [11726]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]This proposal forms part of a much wider set of proposals produced by the European Commission to amend the procedures for the authorisation and control of both human and veterinary medicines in the EU. In considering the proposal the Government have taken account of its likely impact on the supply of veterinary medicines and have agreed that, during negotiations, UK officials should seek to modify the proposal to enable a flexible approach to the distribution of veterinary medicinal products that takes advantage of existing national practices, so long as consumer protection and animal welfare can be demonstrably assured.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from the Food Standards Agency regarding the adequacy of food import controls; and if she will make a statement. [10614]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]Officials from my Department and the Food Standards Agency meet on a regular basis to discuss food import issues. There have been no representations from FSA to DEFRA other than these discussions.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many civil servants are employed in each area of her Department's responsibilities, and at what grades; and what the equivalent figures for the same responsibilities were prior to the establishment of DEFRA. [10618]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The information requested is given in the figures. The data are derived from different sources and this may lead to minor inconsistencies. The figures relate to people in post; they include staff employed to deal with foot and mouth disease and those who are in the process of transferring to the Rural Payments Agency. The figures are expressed as grade equivalents.

  Core MAFF and DETR Central1

  Core DEFRA,2

  Agriculture and Food

  SCS

  12

  12

  Grade 6

  5

  4

  Grade 7

  47

  45

  SEO

  54

  53

  HEO

  177

  177

  EO

  145

  139

  AO

  99

  88

  AA

  64

  59

  Total

  603

  577

  Fisheries

  SCS

  4

  3

  Grade 6

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  16

  14

  SEO

  17

  16

  HEO

  32

  28

  EO

  63

  65

  AO

  43

  47

  AA

  46

  43

  Total

  222

  217

  Environment, Rural and Regional Services

  SCS

  40

  42

  Grade 6

  14

  21

  Grade 7

  138

  154

  SEO

  104

  150

  HEO

  325

  768

  EO

  792

  885

  AO

  1,365

  1,437

  AA

  650

  618

  Total

  3,428

  4,075

  Animal Health (including State Veterinary Service)

  SCS

  22

  24

  Grade 6

  36

  39

  Grade 7

  54

  57

  SEO

  255

  249

  HEO

  109

  127

  EO

  435

  682

  AO

  794

  1,151

  AA

  516

  585

  Total

  2,221

  2,914

  Science Directorate

  SCS

  3

  4

  Grade 6

  8

  8

  Grade 7

  11

  12

  SEO

  11

  10

  HEO

  17

  15

  EO

  22

  22

  AO

  26

  25

  AA

  10

  5

  Total

  108

  101

  33W

  Core MAFF and DETR Central1

  Core DEFRA2

  European Union and International Policy

  SCS

  3

  4

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  9

  6

  SEO

  4

  4

  HEO

  7

  7

  EO

  16

  14

  AO

  9

  11

  AA

  10

  11

  Total

  58

  57

  Economics and Statistics

  SCS

  4

  4

  Grade 6

  1

  2

  Grade 7

  18

  18

  SEO

  6

  6

  HEO

  34

  35

  EO

  47

  41

  AO

  62

  58

  AA

  14

  11

  Total

  186

  175

  Central Services

  SCS

  27

  38

  Grade 6

  29

  39

  Grade 7

  91

  97

  SEO

  88

  88

  HEO

  149

  184

  EO

  164

  179

  AO

  277

  307

  AA

  189

  201

  Total

  1,014

  1,133

  E-Business Directive

  SCS

  2

  2

  Grade 6

  2

  3

  Grade 7

  12

  14

  SEO

  52

  48

  HEO

  106

  107

  EO

  104

  124

  AO

  55

  52

  AA

  13

  10

  Total

  346

  360

  Communications Directorate

  SCS

  1

  2

  Grade 6

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  5

  5

  SEO

  13

  17

  HEO

  22

  26

  EO

  19

  21

  AO

  18

  28

  AA

  6

  6

  Total

  85

  106

  Grand total

  8,271

  9,715

  1At 1 April 2001

  2At 1 October 2001

  Press Officers
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many press officers are employed in her Department; and at what cost to public funds. [10608]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The DEFRA press office has a complement of 16 press officers. In the current financial year, the pay cost to date for the DEFRA press office is £433,239.
  34W
  The non-paying running costs (NPRCs) for the DEFRA press office for this financial year, are as follows; DEFRA press office NPRCs (ex-MAFF)—£260,171.

  Flooding
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the insurance industry regarding flood cover on(a) private and (b) commercial properties. [10617]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The Government keep in close touch with the insurance industry on these issues. Members of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) have previously said they will continue to provide flood cover, except in exceptional circumstances, for domestic properties and small businesses which they currently insure up to the end of 2002.

  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Under-Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), met the ABI on 5 September to discuss our mutual aim of ensuring that affordable flood insurance cover continues to be generally available beyond December 2002.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Environment Agency regarding the funds available for work on flood defences. [10606]

  Margaret. Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The Environment Agency has asked the Government to recognise and commit to meeting the need for a significant further increase in funding on a planned basis to (a) improve flood warnings and (b) maintain and improve the overall standard and extent of flood defence. This will be considered through the Spending Review 2002 process. Current plans are for this Department's spending on flood and coastal defences for all operating authorities to increase from last year's outturn of £66 million to £114 million in 2003–04.

  Consultation Exercises
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many consultation exercises by her Department are in progress. [10612]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs currently has 28 consultation exercises in progress.

  Pheasants
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has of the number of pheasants(a) reared and (b) shot each year for (i) agricultural and (ii) sporting purposes since 1994; [7253]

  (2) what percentage of pheasants released in each year from 1994 to date have been exported; [7254]
  35W
  (3) what estimate she has made of the number of pheasants released each year; of those, what estimate she has of those (i) shot but not captured and (ii) shot and captured; and in respect of the latter category, how many of these are (a) discarded and (b) eaten; [7252]

  (4)how many people she estimates are employed in connection with pheasant-rearing and shooting; and what the estimated animal income of this sector is. [7256]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The Government do not hold such statistics.

  British Waterways
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Board of British Waterways on the scope of its activities in relation to the Environment Agency; and if she will make a statement. [11104]

  Mr. Meacher
  Ministers met the Chairman of British Waterways together with the Chairman of the Environment Agency on 17 September to discuss the future of the Agency's navigation responsibilities in the light of the publication of the report of Stage 1 of the Environment Agency Financial Management and Policy Review. A decision will be announced shortly.

  Council for Voluntary Services
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial assistance she provides to support the Council for Voluntary Services. [R] [10712]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not provide any direct financial assistance to Councils for Voluntary Service or Councils for Voluntary Action. Individual Councils would be eligible to apply for support from the Rural Support Initiative Fund. This Fund, which is part of the joint Government and voluntary sector Rural Stress Action Plan, has supported local initiatives to help people in distress particularly as a result of Foot and Mouth Disease in recent months. We do provide financial support to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (£90,000 for the 2001–02 financial year) and Rural Community Councils (£2.984 million plus staff costs for a Community Development Worker for the 2001–02 financial year) via the Countryside Agency. The Rural Community Councils work closely with Councils for Voluntary Service in their area and concentrate on activity in rural communities.

  Carbon Trust
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the(a) names of the board members appointed to the Carbon Trust in each case listing the sector or industry which they represent and (b) the date of the board's first meeting, its agenda and minutes. [10290]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Carbon Trust is an independent not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, funded by the Government and the devolved Administrations.36W
  Members of the Carbon Trust Board are drawn from both the public and private sectors and cover a wide range of interest and skills relevant to the Trust's remit.

  The current membership is:

  Non-executives

  Ian McAllister—(Chairman), Chairman of Ford UK

  Ian Stephenson—(Deputy Chairman), Johnson Matthey

  Dinah Nichols. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Alistair Keddie, Department of Trade and Industry

  Diarmuid McLean, Northern Ireland Industrial Research and Technology Group

  John Brown. Scottish Executive

  David Pritchard, National Assembly for Wales

  Richard Brook, Leverhulme Trust

  John Edmonds, GMB

  Paul Jefferiss, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Peter Lehmann, Energy Saving Trust

  Chris Mottershead, BP

  Michael Roberts, Confederation of British Industry

  John Speirs, Norsk Hydro UK

  Gordon Waters, United Utilities

  Executives

  Tom Delay, the Carbon Trust, Chief Executive

  Rosemary Boot, the Carbon Trust, Finance Director.

  The first Board meeting was held on 13 July 2001. Publication of Board papers is a matter for the Carbon Trust Board. However, I understand that the Carbon Trust's strategic framework will be published shortly for public consultation.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) under what powers the Ofwat Regulator can(a) compel water companies to install meters at the request of tenants, (b) make water companies notify tenants of any changes to their water charge tariffs and (c) intervene where a tenant feels that the tariff being levied is too high; [11879]

  (2)under what powers water companies are required to (a) advertise changes in tariffs to (i) residents and (ii) tenants and (b) inform (i) residents and (ii) tenants of such changes; [11878]

  (3)if she will make a statement on the procedure for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants other than through the Regulator. [11880]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Under section 142 and 143 of the Water Industry Act 1991, as amended by sections 3 and 4 of the Water Industry Act 1999, water companies have no power to charge for services to a dwelling except in accordance with a charges scheme approved by the Director General of Water Services (Ofwat). Under Condition D of the terms of their appointments as statutory undertakers under the Water Industry Act, companies must make their charges schemes available to anyone on request but there is no requirement to advertise tariffs or changes in tariffs. Companies communicate with their customers about

  37W
  tariffs when sending out bills. Ofwat also publishes information each year about changes in average bills and detailed tariffs for each company.

  Disputes as to the water charges payable by a customer to the water company may be made to Ofwat. There is no distinction in this procedure between customers who are tenants and others.

  Under sections 144A and 209A of the Water Industry Act 1991 as amended by sections 6 and 11 of the Water Industry Act 1999, the right to a measured water charge, and therefore to a water meter free of initial cost, is available to all household water company customers irrespective of tenure except for tenancies of less than six months. The terms of a tenancy may not prevent a tenant from requesting the installation of a meter or require any consent from the landlord. Companies are required to fit a meter on request except where it would not be reasonably practicable or would incur unreasonable expense. Any dispute may be determined by Ofwat. Water companies have no involvement or statutory duties as to the charges made by landlords to tenants who are not water company customers, nor is there any statutory duty on landlords to charge tenants on a measured basis.

  Sometimes the landlord is the customer liable to pay charges to the water company. The charges set by such a landlord to tenants are service charges that are in the first place a matter between landlord and tenant. Ofwat has made the Water Resale Order 2001, under section 150 of the Water Industry Act, limiting the charges that may be made for reselling water or sewerage services provided originally by a water company. Ofwat can advise but has no powers to determine disputes between landlords and tenants.

  Litter
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to encourage a reduction of litter in London. [8330]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department funds the Tidy Britain Group (TBG) who work closely with the London local authorities to improve local environmental quality. The Government's Pathfinder initiative announced in March is providing £1 million for 50 local authority schemes to promote local environmental quality including reduction in litter. Four of the approved schemes are in London, in Ealing, Lambeth, Lewisham and Newham. In addition Bexley and Wandsworth councils are working with TBG on an educational project, Eco-Schools. This allows schools to carry out an environmental audit, with tackling litter problems a key part. Under the TBG' s People and Places programme, TBG officers are working with a third of London's local authorities to survey the amount of litter on the streets and provide advice on how to improve street cleansing.

  Thames2l is a partnership project sponsored by TBG which is designed to improve the environment of the River Thames and its tributaries. This programme is actively supported by two thirds of the local authorities in London who make a voluntary contribution to the work.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish a combined heat and power strategy. [8263]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will be issuing a draft Government strategy for consultation by the end of this year.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further steps she plans to take to ensure that 10 GW can be generated by combined heat and power by 2010. [10426]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The Department is developing, in close collaboration with DTI and other Departments, a draft CHP strategy, which will set out the measures needed to achieve the Government's target of at least 10,000 MW of installed CHP electrical capacity by 2010. Our timetable for issuing the draft strategy for consultation is by the end of this year.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  SEN Tribunals
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases were referred to SEN tribunals in each local education authority in England in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; what proportion they represent of the school age population of each authority; and how many appeals were (i) upheld or partially upheld, (ii) withdrawn and (iii) turned down. [12243]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Tables showing the number of appeals referred to the special educational needs tribunal by local education authority in each of the three years for which information is requested, the number decided, the number withdrawn and the proportion they represent of the school age population, have been placed in the Library. The tribunal does not collect information about the outcome of appeals in the format requested. However, information about the number of appeals upheld or partially upheld is available at the national level, and has been placed in the Library. A case is listed as "upheld" when any of the points at issue are decided in the parents' favour. Over the last three years, the percentage of decisions where the appeal is upheld has increased from 75 per cent. to 79 per cent.

  AS-level Examination
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to abolish the AS level examination; what assessment she has made of the impact of the introduction of the AS level examination on pupils' involvement in non-curricular school activities; and if she will make a statement. [11490]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  None. The Government remain committed to the principles behind the Curriculum 2000 reforms, including the AS award. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's phase 1 report on the review of Curriculum 2000 included an assessment of the impact of the introduction of the AS-level examinations on enrichment activities. This concluded that student
  39W
  participation in extra-curricular activities has been reduced in some, but by no means all, institutions. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Healthy Lifestyles
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what initiatives her Department aims at children of school age to promote healthy lifestyles and positive activities not involving drugs and other substance misuse. [7342]

  Mr. Timms
  We recognise how important it is for young people to be made aware of the positive effects that a healthy, active lifestyle and a nutritious diet can have on their life chances. We are the first Government to introduce a non-statutory framework for personal, social and health education (PSHE) across all four key stages.

  Together with the Department of Health, our commitment to promoting healthier lifestyles through positive activities is clear from the "healthy schools" and "food in schools" programmes. The national healthy school standard, the mainstay of the "healthy schools" programme, helps to set the context for schools when developing policies in areas such as healthy eating and physical activity. "Food in schools" brings together all food-related initiatives in schools to improve young people's health and learning. Our recent White Paper, "schools: Achieving Success", highlighted our commitment to promoting healthier lifestyles among young people.

  Special Schools
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision is made for disability issues and education in the legislation governing residential special schools. [10710]

  Mr. Timms
  The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which comes into force in September 2002, will ensure that pupils in all schools receive protection from unfair discrimination. This Act will make it unlawful for education providers to discriminate against disabled pupils and prospective pupils by treating them less favourably on the grounds of their disability or by failing to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage. These provisions apply to admission to the school, the education and other associated services offered and provided to pupils' by the school, and exclusion from the school.Under the Care Standards Act 2000, residential special schools will be obliged to ensure that residential, care and teaching staff work together to identify means of encouraging each child's personal, social, and educational development and achievement.
  Through both the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the Care Standards Act 2000 the Government are actively promoting welfare, safety, and quality educational provision for children in residential special schools.

  IT Staff
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many IT teaching posts in higher education were unfilled in 2000; [10912]

  (2) what recent studies she has carried out into the shortage of IT staff in higher education; and if she will make a statement; [10911]
  40W
  (3) what discussions she has had in 2001 on the shortage of IT staff in higher education institutions; and if she will make a statement. [10925]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not held centrally. Individual universities and colleges, as employers, are responsible for monitoring their own vacancies. However, surveys commissioned by the funding councils and representative bodies to follow up the Bett report suggested that while there were no generalised problems of recruitment or retention, there were specific issues in recruiting to some subjects where there was competition for qualified staff in the economy, including information and communication technology. The Government have made available additional funding for higher education pay over three years, rising to £170 million in 2003–04. In exchange, all institutions have provided the Higher Education Funding Council for England with a human resources strategy which sets out the issues they have to address and how they will be resolved.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the age participation rate in(a) higher education and (b) first degree course for each year since 1980. [11032]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: It is not possible to desegregate a separate participation rate for first degree undergraduates only.

  The available information, showing the proportion of under-21-year-olds who enter higher education, is shown in the following table. There was an increase in entrant numbers in 1997–98, related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999–2000. Between 1996–97 and 2000–01, the total of HE students in English universities and colleges rose by 118,000.

  Latest figures show that total acceptances to HE courses in autumn 2001 rose by 5.6 per cent.1
  1 The API is defined as the number of home domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19 year olds in the population.

  Age participation index (API), Great Britain

  Year of entry

  Percentage

  1980

  13

  1981

  13

  1982

  13

  1983

  13

  1984

  14

  1985

  14

  1986

  14

  1987

  15

  1988

  15

  1989

  17

  1990

  19

  1991

  23

  1992

  28

  1993

  30

  1994

  32

  1995

  32

  41W

  Age participation index (API), Great Britain

  Year of entry

  Percentage

  1996

  33

  1997

  33

  1998

  31

  1999

  32

  20001

  32–34

  1 Projected: final data on initial entrants are not yet available.

  Source:

  UCAS

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Standards fund

  2,100,980

  2,689,725

  3,501,381

  9,490,717

  13,824,907

  16,640,731

  Teachers pay reforms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,317,167

  1—

  Nursery education

  —

  7,186,176

  1,363,615

  1,496,492

  2,220,779

  1—

  Early years development and childcare partnership (EYDCP)

  —

  —

  123,000

  506,300

  789,810

  21,466,762

  Transitional insurance (former GM schools)

  —

  —

  —

  40,407

  21,039

  597

  School standards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,355,000

  9,071,000

  School budget support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  655,000

  —

  Education budget support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100,000

  Statutory education action zones

  —

  —

  —

  —

  772,000

  815,000

  Capital

  7,389,000

  8,455,000

  13,059,000

  10,925,000

  24,531,000

  1—

  1 Not finalised.

  2 Northamptonshire EYDCP has also been allocated £1,486,110 revenue funding and £634,440 capital funding in 2001–04 for the Neighbourhood Nurseries initiative for Northamptonshire. It will be up to the EYDCP to decide the breakdown between years.

  Figures for the amount of grants spent in an individual constituency or borough cannot be provided.

  Northamptonshire (School Places)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent steps her Department has taken to assist Northamptonshire local education authority in increasing the provision of school places in Northampton to match(a) current needs and (b) future requirements generated by new housing developments; and if she will make a statement. [11286]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government believe that decisions concerning the supply of school places are best taken locally—by the main partners in the provision of education who have knowledge of local needs. Local education authorities have a duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places in their area. They must publish annually a school organisation plan which sets out how they plan to deal with any surplus or deficit of school places over a rolling five-year period.

  Where an LEA can demonstrate overall growth in the need for school places, it may apply to the Department for capital funding. I am aware of proposals for change in Northampton and officials are in regular contact with the LEA regarding this.

  Northamptonshire (Class Sizes)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children aged(a) five, (b) six and (c) seven are taught in classes of over 30 in schools in Northampton; and what were the figures in 1997. [11280]

  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown in the table. This information has been collected only since January 1998.

  Northamptonshire (Local Initiatives)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual expenditure by her Department was on centrally financed local initiatives in(a) Northamptonshire, (b) Northampton borough and (c) Northampton, South constituency for each of the last six years. [11278]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table shows the Department's allocated grants to Northamptonshire local education authority for each year since 1996–97.

  Percentage of pupils in classes of over 30 taught by one teacher in mainland primary schools1.2

  Year

  January 2001

  January 1998

  Northampton LEA

  Reception3

  0.0

  17.5

  Group 13

  5.5

  27.1

  Group 23

  5.7

  32.8

  England

  Reception3

  1.8

  23.2

  Group 13

  1.3

  32.7

  Group 23

  4.0

  35.7

  1 Classes as taught during a selected period in each school on the day of the census in January

  2 Excludes middle schools

  3 Pupils in reception classes will reach the age of 5 during the academic year and pupils in Years 1 and 2 will reach the ages of 6 and 7 respectively during the academic year.

  School Autonomy
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria she will use to assess if a school should be given greater autonomy. [11293]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: A combination of inspection evidence, performance data and a record of effective leadership will be used to decide those schools that should be eligible for greater freedom. The precise criteria will be developed in discussion with Ofsted.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the criteria by which faith schools are determined to be inclusive. [11461]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The White Paper, "schools: Achieving Success" said that we want faith schools that come into the maintained sector to

  43W
  add to the inclusiveness and diversity of the school system and to be ready to work with schools of other faiths and those that do not have a religious character. We welcomed the recommendation in Lord Dearing's report to the Archbishops Council that Church of England schools should serve the whole community, not confining admission to Anglicans. We have not published criteria for inclusiveness.

  Schools (Administrative Burdens)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she has taken to reduce the administrative burdens on(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and if she will make a statement. [11482]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department keeps administrative requirements on all schools under continuous review. We have taken a number of actions to reduce the burdens on schools—for example, we have simplified the standards fund by replacing all bidding, claiming and reporting paperwork with a single expenditure returns sheet; and by allowing schools to switch funds between grant headings and carry them over to the end of the school year.

  From April 2001, £240 million over three years is being made available in a single small schools fund to provide extra funding for small schools to meet proportionately higher administrative costs; and also to encourage the development of collaborative approaches to reducing burdens, such as shared ICT technicians.

  In the school year 2000–01, we exceeded our target of reducing by half the number of pages sent to schools by the Department. We continue actively to screen all mailings to schools.

  We recognise that there is more to be done. The White Paper commits the Government to making teaching a more manageable profession. The PricewaterhouseCoopers study of teacher workload, expected at the end of November, will put forward further practical ways of addressing workload issues.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to give headteachers greater control over the allocation of performance related pay in their own schools; and if she will make a statement. [11484]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government set the overall performance pay structure and provides funding to support the award of extra pay points, but it is for each school to determine its own performance pay policy and apply this when taking decisions affecting individual teachers.

  Powers and Funding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to decentralise powers and funding from(a) national Government to local government and (b) local education authorities to schools; and if she will make a statement. [11488]
  44W
  Mr. Timms
  The White, Paper, "schools: Achieving Success", sets out the Government's agenda for transforming secondary education in England, including increased autonomy for successful schools.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will shortly be publishing a White Paper on the role of local government. It will cover, among other things, our plans to reform the local government finance system, including ensuring that schools receive a fair share of the funding provided by central government to local education authorities.

  A-level Examinations
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of A-level examination papers have been graded at grade A for each of the last 20 years; how many A-level examinations have been entered in each of these years; and if she will make a statement. [11489]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The proportion of GCE A-level examinations that resulted in a grade A over the last 20 years in England, together with the number of examinations in those years, are shown as follows. Corresponding figures are not available for the intervening years 1986 to 1990.

  Proportion of examination papers resulting in A grades (percentage)

  Total number of examinations

  1980

  8.8

  567,027

  1981

  9.2

  588,249

  1982

  8.9

  614,153

  1983

  9.4

  632,127

  1984

  9.6

  627,669

  1985

  9.8

  609,215

  1991

  11.5

  635,093

  1992

  12.6

  669,584

  1993

  13.4

  677.093

  1994

  14.3

  675,572

  1995

  15.4

  668,941

  1996

  15.7

  677,295

  1997

  15.7

  713,569

  1998

  16.8

  724,852

  1999

  17.4

  720,304

  2000

  17.6

  709,580

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average points score at A-level was for(a) pupils educated in local authorities which retain grammar schools, (b) pupils educated in local authorities which have no grammar schools and (c) the country as a whole, at the latest date for which figures are available. [11634]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The average GCE A-level point score of pupils aged 16 to 18 in maintained schools in England in 1999–2000 was(a) 17.8 for pupils educated in local authorities which retain grammar schools, (b) 15.9 for pupils educated in local authorities which have no grammar schools and (c) 16.6 for pupils in all maintained schools. The overall figure for all schools in England, including independent schools, was 17.9.

  Illiteracy
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how may school children in England are judged to be illiterate in each age cohort; and if she will make a statement. [11491]

  Mr. Timms
  Early statistics for this year show that 99 per cent. of 15-year-olds (549,450 pupils) achieved a GCSE pass in English. Literacy standards are also rising in primary schools; this year 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds (474,000 pupils) achieved the expected standard for their age in the key stage 2 English tests, an increase of 10 per cent. points since 1998.

  Failing Schools (Private Firms)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the statutory provisions that prevent private firms taking over the running of failing schools. [11536]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Section 38 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 provides for the conduct of a maintained school to be under the direction of the school's governing body.

  Curriculum
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to allow 12 to 13-year-old pupils to drop history and geography as part of the curriculum. [11545]

  Mr. Timms
  The last national curriculum review reaffirmed the position of history and geography as statutory subjects for all key stage three pupils. History

  Number of pupils eligible for free school meals in specialist secondary schools and other maintained secondary schools, January 2001, by Government office region

  Specialist secondary schools

  Other maintained secondary schools

  Number of schools

  Number of day pupils

  Number of pupils eligible for FSM

  Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM

  Number of schools

  Number of day pupils

  Number of pupils eligible for FSM

  Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM

  England

  676

  769,973

  112,865

  14.7

  2,805

  2,457,000

  396,811

  16.2

  North East

  Hartlepool

  2

  2,409

  476

  19.8

  4

  4,270

  1,250

  29.3

  Middlesbrough

  2

  2,119

  753

  35.5

  9

  6,453

  2,317

  35.9

  Redcar and Cleveland1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stockton-on-Tees

  4

  5,070

  674

  13.3

  9

  7,723

  1,883

  24.4

  Darlington

  3

  2,953

  368

  12.5

  4

  3,056

  581

  19.0

  Durham

  13

  13,116

  2,075

  15.8

  23

  19,042

  3,687

  19.4

  Northumberland

  8

  8,014

  766

  9.6

  52

  22,464

  2,927

  13.0

  Gateshead

  5

  7,025

  930

  13.2

  5

  5,018

  1,676

  33.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7

  10,140

  2,196

  21.7

  14

  7,931

  2,377

  30.0

  North Tyneside

  4

  3,521

  831

  23.6

  16

  10,653

  1,667

  15.6

  South Tyneside

  2

  2,680

  527

  19.7

  9

  7,828

  2,008

  25.7

  Sunderland

  4

  4,823

  1,046

  21.7

  13

  15,014

  4,910

  32.7

  North West

  Halton

  2

  2,017

  396

  19.6

  7

  6,671

  1,687

  25.3

  Warrington

  3

  4,192

  316

  7.5

  9

  9,641

  1,084

  11.2

  Cheshire

  6

  5,654

  671

  11.9

  39

  40,585

  3,934

  9.7

  Cumbria

  9

  8,533

  1,133

  13.3

  33

  25,134

  3,034

  12.1

  Bolton

  4

  5,363

  321

  6.0

  12

  13,782

  2,652

  19.2

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  11,731

  1,754

  15.0

  Manchester

  7

  8,229

  3,110

  37.8

  16

  15,248

  7,176

  47.1

  Oldham

  2

  2,398

  671

  28.0

  13

  14,427

  3,022

  20.9

  Rochdale

  4

  4,583

  1,054

  23.0

  10

  9,571

  2,511

  26.2

  Salford

  2

  1,874

  169

  9.0

  14

  10,650

  3,040

  28.5

  46W
  fires pupils' curiosity about the past in Britain and the wider world. Geography provokes and answers questions about the natural and human worlds, developing pupils' knowledge of places and environments throughout the world.

  A major focus of our drive to raise standards for pupils in the first years of secondary school is the key stage 3 strategy. This will eventually impact across all subjects in the curriculum, including history and geography, through the programme for teaching and learning in the foundation subjects, which we are currently piloting.

  School Cleanliness
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to monitor the cleanliness of schools. [11588]

  Mr. Timms
  Cleanliness in schools is a matter for local education authorities and governing bodies, as they have duties as employers to ensure that school premises meet health and safety requirements.

  Free School Meals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in each LEA how many and what proportion of secondary school pupils received free school meals; how many pupils received free school meals and what proportion of the intake this represents at each specialist school within the LEA, at the latest date for which information is available. [11628]

  Mr. Timms
  Information showing free school meals data for specialist and other secondary schools by local education authority is contained in the table.
  47W

  Number of pupils eligible for free school meals in specialist secondary schools and other maintained secondary schools, January 2001, by Government office region

  Specialist secondary schools

  Other maintained secondary schools

  Number of schools

  Number of day pupils

  Number of pupils eligible for FSM

  Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM

  Number of schools

  Number of day pupils

  Number of pupils eligible for FSM

  Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM

  Stockport

  2

  2,791

  469

  16.8

  12

  13,784

  1,856

  13.5

  Tameside

  2

  2,357

  593

  25.2

  16

  13,011

  2,503

  19.2

  Trafford

  5

  5,000

  1,161

  23.2

  13

  10,846

  1,280

  11.8

  Wigan

  7

  7,716

  910

  11.8

  14

  13,139

  2,146

  16.3

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2

  2,143

  448

  20.9

  7

  7,358

  2,021

  27.5

  Blackpool

  2

  2,204

  397

  18.0

  6

  5,620

  1,324

  23.6

  Lancashire

  17

  16,642

  1,350

  8.1

  72

  58,172

  9,832

  16.9

  Knowsley

  3

  3,160

  1,226

  38.8

  8

  7,080

  3,386

  47.8

  Liverpool

  9

  10,775

  2,781

  25.8

  24

  22,701

  9,282

  40.9

  St. Helens

  3

  4,167

  649

  15.6

  9

  7,992

  1,682

  21.0

  Sefton

  3

  3,893

  493

  12.7

  19

  16,783

  3,600

  21.5

  Wirral

  5

  5,759

  1,452

  25.2

  18

  18,422

  5,004

  27.2

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  5

  7,333

  527

  7.2

  13

  15,294

  1,416

  9.3

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  3

  4,446

  807

  18.2

  13

  11,566

  3,517

  30.4

  North East Lincolnshire

  3

  3,264

  850

  26.0

  9

  8,471

  1,571

  18.5

  North Lincolnshire

  3

  2,933

  428

  14.6

  11

  7,716

  1,007

  13.1

  York

  4

  4,929

  295

  6.0

  7

  5,045

  592

  11.7

  North Yorkshire

  8

  8,703

  445

  5.1

  39

  31,513

  2,134

  6.8

  Barnsley1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  17

  21,378

  3,829

  17.9

  Rotherham

  4

  4,910

  648

  13.2

  13

  14,935

  2,497

  16.7

  Sheffield

  8

  9,596

  1,371

  14.3

  19

  20,265

  4,603

  22.7

  Bradford

  8

  12,539

  2,869

  22.9

  19

  21,675

  6,291

  29.0

  Calderdale1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  6

  6,073

  921

  15.2

  26

  20,242

  3,823

  18.9

  Leeds

  8

  9,799

  1,444

  14.7

  35

  37,369

  7,038

  18.8

  Wakefield

  5

  6,758

  1,283

  19.0

  13

  14,521

  2,336

  16.1

  East Midlands

  Derby

  3

  3,739

  458

  12.2

  11

  11,009

  2,518

  22.9

  Derbyshire

  10

  11,201

  869

  7.8

  37

  36,627

  4,240

  11.6

  Leicester

  5

  5,436

  1,389

  25.6

  11

  12,598

  2,638

  20.9

  Rutland1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  9

  12,977

  822

  6.3

  45

  31,682

  2,259

  7.1

  Lincolnshire

  15

  14,151

  1,089

  7.7

  48

  29,842

  2,606

  8.7

  Northamptonshire

  12

  14.933

  909

  6.1

  48

  34,259

  4,376

  12.8

  Nottingham

  2

  2,115

  690

  32.6

  18

  11,795

  4,478

  38.0

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  5,927

  830

  14.0

  54

  49,053

  6,148

  12.5

  West Midlands

  Herefordshire

  2

  2,032

  99

  4.9

  12

  7,792

  680

  8.7

  Worcestershire

  7

  7,638

  801

  10.5

  54

  32,670

  3,339

  10.2

  Telford and Wrekin

  2

  1,521

  204

  13.4

  111

  8,657

  1,829

  21.1

  Shropshire

  4

  4,075

  288

  7.1

  18

  13,531

  1,134

  8.4

  Stoke-on-Trent

  3

  2,870

  623

  21.7

  14

  11,962

  2,980

  24.9

  Staffordshire

  4

  5,348

  478

  8.9

  65

  55,586

  5,147

  9.3

  Warwickshire

  5

  5,108

  427

  8.4

  32

  27,550

  2,066

  7.5

  Birmingham

  26

  25,401

  8,061

  31.7

  51

  43,638

  14,826

  34.0

  Coventry

  4

  5,091

  1,074

  21.1

  15

  15,872

  3,149

  19.8

  Dudley1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  3

  3,240

  1,052

  32.5

  17

  16,292

  3,688

  22.6

  Solihull

  2

  2,398

  60

  2.5

  11

  13,188

  1,815

  13.8

  Walsall

  3

  3,476

  682

  19.6

  17

  17,908

  2,991

  16.7

  Wolverhampton

  5

  4,695

  768

  16.4

  13

  11,846

  2,942

  24.8

  East of England

  Luton

  2

  2,449

  367

  15.0

  10

  9,628

  2,884

  30.0

  Bedfordshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Peterborough

  2

  2,583

  372

  14.4

  11

  10,378

  1,899

  18.3

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  10,629

  719

  6.8

  21

  20,394

  1,706

  8.4

  Southend-on-Sea

  3

  2,840

  367

  12.9

  9

  8,527

  1,122

  13.2

  Thurrock1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  19

  24,000

  2,336

  9.7

  60

  62,251

  6,265

  10.1

  Hertfordshire

  11

  10,956

  522

  4.8

  75

  64,868

  5,083

  7.8

  Norfolk

  12

  13,198

  1,343

  10.2

  40

  31,185

  3,416

  11.0

  Suffolk

  12

  12,538

  1,053

  8.4

  66

  40,495

  4,513

  11.1

  48W 49W

  Number of pupils eligible for free school meals in specialist secondary schools and other maintained secondary schools, January 2001, by Government office region

  Specialist secondary schools

  Other maintained secondary schools

  Number of schools

  Number of day pupils

  Number of pupils eligible for FSM

  Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM

  Number of schools

  Number of day pupils

  Number of pupils eligible for FSM

  Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM

  London

  Inner London

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  4

  4,545

  1,254

  27.6

  6

  6,325

  1,883

  29.8

  Hackney

  5

  4,411

  2,061

  46.7

  4

  3,510

  1,453

  41.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Halingey1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  2

  1,815

  904

  49.8

  7

  5,768

  2,557

  44.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  4

  3,665

  1,164

  31.8

  Lambeth

  3

  2,398

  940

  39.2

  7

  4,815

  2,071

  43.0

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  11,661

  4,621

  39.6

  Newham

  5

  6,667

  2,662

  39.9

  10

  10,802

  5,177

  47.9

  Southwark

  2

  1,844

  1,029

  55.8

  11

  8,377

  4,372

  52.2

  Tower Hamlets

  4

  4,050

  3,005

  74.2

  11

  10,037

  6,168

  61.5

  Wandsworth

  5

  6,397

  1,601

  25.0

  4

  3,551

  1,069

  30.1

  Westminster

  2

  1,777

  556

  31.3

  6

  6,244

  2,079

  33.3

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  3

  3,709

  746

  20.1

  5

  7,370

  2,133

  28.9

  Barnet

  3

  3,502

  623

  17.8

  18

  17,571

  2,682

  15.3

  Bexley1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  4

  3,848

  856

  22.2

  9

  10,632

  2,698

  25.4

  Bromley

  5

  6,274

  589

  9.4

  12

  14,964

  1,915

  12.8

  Croydon1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  5

  6,164

  1.756

  28.5

  8

  7,776

  2,599

  33.4

  Enfield

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  17

  20,530

  4,172

  20.3

  Greenwich

  5

  5,767

  2,125

  36.8

  9

  8,067

  2,521

  31.3

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  8,874

  1,556

  17.5

  Havering

  2

  2,068

  239

  11.6

  16

  13,836

  1,527

  11.0

  Hillingdon

  3

  3,869

  356

  9.2

  14

  12,603

  2,084

  16.5

  Hounslow

  2

  2,526

  371

  14.7

  12

  13,766

  2,842

  20.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  8,639

  790

  9.1

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  11

  7,754

  1,262

  16.3

  Redbridge

  5

  6,301

  1,318

  20.9

  11

  12,567

  1,547

  12.3

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  8

  7,531

  1,180

  15.7

  Sutton1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  3

  2,997

  514

  17.2

  13

  9,983

  3,373

  33.8

  South East

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  6

  6,022

  289

  4.8

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  10,207

  573

  5.6

  West Berkshire

  6

  7.037

  391

  5.6

  4

  4,710

  165

  3.5

  Reading1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Slough

  2

  1,483

  285

  19.2

  9

  6,442

  945

  14.7

  Wokingham

  2

  2,190

  61

  2.8

  7

  8,568

  448

  5.2

  Milton Keynes

  4

  4,465

  466

  10.4

  7

  7,593

  972

  12.8

  Buckinghamshire

  9

  9,165

  314

  3.4

  25

  24,051

  1,900

  7.9

  Brighton and Hove

  2

  2,872

  385

  13.4

  8

  9,154

  1,727

  18.9

  East Sussex

  7

  8,687

  1,010

  11.6

  19

  19,120

  2,625

  13.7

  Portsmouth1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southampton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  12,235

  2,110

  17.2

  Hampshire

  7

  8,633

  456

  5.3

  64

  61,931

  4,172

  6.7

  Isle of Wight

  2

  2,356

  317

  13.5

  19

  9,564

  1,672

  17.5

  Kent

  13

  13,541

  1,108

  8.2

  92

  79,451

  8,001

  10.1

  Medway

  4

  4,363

  333

  7.6

  16

  15,474

  1,617

  10.4

  Oxfordshire

  8

  10,697

  798

  7.5

  37

  27,574

  2,843

  10.3

  Surrey

  12

  15,901

  661

  4.2

  41

  40,323

  2,788

  6.9

  West Sussex

  8

  11,486

  493

  4.3

  31

  31,332

  2,469

  7.9

  South West

  Bath and North East Somerset

  5

  5,219

  339

  6.5

  8

  7,054

  630

  8.9

  Bristol, City of

  3

  3,082

  489

  15.9

  17

  14,825

  3,180

  21.5

  North Somerset

  5

  5,891

  547

  9.3

  5

  6,378

  411

  6.4

  South Gloucestershire

  3

  4,474

  278

  6.2

  11

  11,968

  960

  8.0

  Cornwall

  12

  13,683

  1,637

  12.0

  19

  18,318

  2,268

  12.4

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  1

  95

  6

  6.3

  Torbay1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50W 51W

  Number of pupils eligible for free school meals in specialist secondary schools and other maintained secondary schools, January 2001, by Government office region

  Specialist secondary schools

  Other maintained secondary schools

  Number of schools

  Number of day pupils

  Number of pupils eligible for FSM

  Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM

  Number of schools

  Number of day pupils

  Number of pupils eligible for FSM

  Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM

  Plymouth

  6

  6,786

  1,135

  16.7

  12

  12,043

  1,494

  12.4

  Devon

  6

  9,010

  777

  8.6

  31

  30,793

  3,290

  10.7

  Bournemouth

  3

  3,802

  269

  7.1

  7

  5,968

  774

  13.0

  Poole

  2

  2,321

  109

  4.7

  7

  5,876

  483

  8.2

  Dorset

  7

  7,409

  489

  6.6

  30

  21,836

  1,318

  6.0

  Gloucestershire

  13

  13,729

  792

  5.8

  29

  24,436

  1,883

  7.7

  Somerset

  8

  6,966

  585

  8.4

  31

  23,821

  2,188

  9.2

  Swindon

  2

  2,358

  358

  15.2

  8

  9,203

  726

  7.9

  Wiltshire

  9

  9,571

  685

  7.2

  25

  18,460

  1,143

  6.2

  1These local education authorities only have one specialist school. It is departmental policy not to release individual school level information unless the school has had the opportunity to check or confirm that information. Schools have not had the opportunity to check their free school meals data.

  GCSE Passes
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils attained five or more GCSE passes at grades A-C, by social class, in(a) grammar schools and (b) comprehensive schools in each of the past five years. [11629]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The primary source of information on GCSE attainment broken down by school type and personal characteristics is the youth cohort study (YCS). The YCS is run in alternate years; estimates for the proportion who gained five or more A*-C grades at GCSE in 1995, 1997 and 1999 are provided in the table.

  Percentage

  Schools

  Non manual background

  Manual background

  1995

  Grammar

  94

  87

  Comprehensive

  59

  33

  1997

  Grammar

  95

  92

  Comprehensive

  60

  34

  1999

  Grammar

  1—

  1—

  Comprehensive

  60

  39

  1Figures for Grammar schools in 1999 are not available

  These estimates include schools in England and Wales only, and exclude independent and modern schools.

  Nuclear Engineering Degrees
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list those universities offering a course in nuclear engineering; and if she will make a statement. [11765]

  Margaret Hodge
  No universities currently offer an undergraduate course specifically in nuclear engineering. However, a report by the Health and Safety Executive/Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in October 2000, "Nuclear Education and Research in British Universities",52W
  listed eight higher education institutions (HEIs) offering undergraduate courses with nuclear engineering modules. Those were:

  University of Birmingham

  University of Cambridge

  City University

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  University of Liverpool

  University of Manchester

  University of Plymouth

  University of Sheffield.

  The following 12 institutions offered masters courses relevant to nuclear education:

  University of Birmingham

  City University

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  University of Liverpool

  Loughborough University

  Middlesex University

  University of Plymouth

  Queen Mary and Westfield College, London

  Royal Navy School of Marine and Air Engineering, HMS Sultan (Department of Nuclear Science and Technology)

  University of Surrey

  University of Wales, Swansea

  University College London.

  The HSE/NII report is expected to be updated during the second half of 2002.

  Schools (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills over what transitional period the new funding formula for Worcestershire schools will be phased in; and if she will make a statement. [11882]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: We are continuing to work on the new funding system with external partners: no decisions have been made on the period over which the new system will need to be phased in.

  leachers (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers from ethnic minorities have entered the profession in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [11999]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities had agreed new targets in literacy and numeracy for 11-year-olds by 26 October; and what the targets were in each case. [12090]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The new 2004 targets for literacy and numeracy will he agreed as part of the education development plan approval process in the early part of next year.

  Number of three-year-olds taking up free early years education places, England, Government Office regions and each local education authority area 2000–01—Position in January each year

  2000

  2001

  LEA name

  Maintained1

  Private, voluntary and independent providers and other LA provisions2

  All

  Maintained1

  Private, voluntary and independent providers and other LA provision2

  All

  England

  229,883

  40,309

  270,192

  226,634

  108,813

  335,447

  North East

  22,337

  2,245

  24,582

  21,871

  3,288

  25,159

  Darlington

  975

  0

  975

  919

  49

  968

  Durham3

  3,845

  331

  4,176

  3,850

  612

  4,462

  Gateshead3

  1,412

  562

  1,974

  1,342

  593

  1,935

  Hartlepool3

  1,063

  36

  1,099

  961

  34

  995

  Middlesbrough3

  1,727

  53

  1,780

  1,849

  115

  1,964

  Newcastle upon Tyne3

  1,757

  715

  2,472

  1,773

  857

  2,630

  North Tyneside3

  1,793

  54

  1,847

  1,767

  232

  1,999

  Northumberland

  2,118

  0

  2,118

  2,139

  136

  2,275

  Redcar and Cleveland3

  1,795

  2

  1,797

  1,601

  14

  1.615

  South Tyneside3

  1,391

  81

  1,472

  1,450

  143

  1,593

  Stockton-on-Tees3

  1,911

  67

  1,978

  1,813

  100

  1.913

  Sunderland3

  2,550

  344

  2,894

  2,407

  404

  2,811

  North West

  41,335

  9,156

  50,491

  39,566

  20,727

  60,293

  Blackburn with Darwen3

  1,041

  381

  1,422

  966

  679

  1,645

  Blackpool3

  323

  1,271

  1,594

  314

  1,075

  1,389

  Bolton3

  2,155

  796

  2,951

  2,088

  926

  3,014

  Bury

  1,045

  0

  1,045

  1,046

  91

  1,137

  Cheshire

  2,246

  0

  2,246

  2,172

  783

  2,955

  Cumbria

  2,418

  0

  2,418

  2,410

  1,138

  3,548

  Halton3

  623

  565

  1,188

  542

  577

  1.119

  Knowsley3

  2,066

  73

  2,139

  1,847

  133

  1,980

  Lancashire

  4,253

  0

  4,253

  4,199

  5,155

  9,354

  Liverpool3

  3,890

  1,297

  5,187

  3,648

  1,310

  4,958

  Manchester3

  4,078

  522

  4,600

  3,890

  713

  4,603

  Oldham3

  1,525

  846

  2,371

  1,507

  1,048

  2,555

  Rochdale3

  1,387

  885

  2,272

  1,287

  966

  2,253

  Salford3

  2,047

  147

  2,194

  1,836

  247

  2,083

  Sefton3

  2,078

  289

  2,367

  2,103

  778

  2,881

  St. Helens3

  1,102

  362

  1,464

  1,084

  495

  1,579

  Stockport

  1,625

  0

  1,625

  1,703

  87

  1,790

  Tameside3

  1,646

  516

  2,162

  1,580

  581

  2,161

  Trafford

  1,580

  0

  1,580

  1,497

  196

  1,693

  Warrington

  963

  0

  963

  889

  1,099

  1,988

  Wigan

  1,513

  0

  1,513

  1,358

  1,194

  2,552

  Wirral3

  1,731

  1,206

  2,937

  1,600

  1,455

  3,055

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  32,541

  7,204

  39,745

  31,804

  15,222

  47,026

  Barnsley3

  1,404

  226

  1,630

  1,356

  529

  1,885

  Bradford3

  4,747

  805

  5,552

  4,520

  1,197

  5,717

  Calderdale

  1,305

  0

  1,305

  1,184

  666

  1,850

  Doncaster3

  2,219

  110

  2,329

  2,249

  161

  2,410

  Three-year-olds
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places were provided for three-year-olds in each local education authority in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 (i) in LEA-funded settings, (ii) in Government-funded settings and (iii) in other settings; and how many were taken up in each category. [12242]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The available information on the numbers of three-year-olds in free early years education places in each local education authority area is shown in the following table. The table shows the numbers of three-year-olds taking up: 1. Local education authority funded places; 2. Places funded directly by Government in the private, voluntary and independent sectors including places in settings run by the local authority rather than the local education authority, e.g. social services.
  55W

  Number of three-year-olds taking up free early years education places, England, Government Office regions and each local education authority area 2000–01—Position in January each year

  2000

  2001

  LEA name

  Maintained1

  Private, voluntary and independent providers and other LA provisions2

  All

  Maintained1

  Private, voluntary and independent providers and other LA provision2

  All

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,033

  0

  1,033

  1,024

  138

  1,162

  Kingston-upon-Hull, City of3

  2,111

  460

  2,571

  2,036

  517

  2,553

  Kirklees3

  2,618

  407

  3,025

  2,489

  1,488

  3,977

  Leeds3

  5,874

  1,779

  7,653

  5,642

  1,786

  7,428

  North East Lincolnshire3

  998

  521

  1,519

  933

  554

  1,487

  North Lincolnshire

  585

  0

  585

  637

  536

  1,173

  North Yorkshire

  1,796

  0

  1,796

  1,705

  3,218

  4,923

  Rotherham3

  1,447

  724

  2,171

  1,364

  875

  2,239

  Sheffield3

  2,932

  1,815

  4,747

  3,372

  2,030

  5,402

  Wakefield3

  2,684

  358

  3,042

  2,592

  611

  3,203

  York3

  788

  0

  788

  701

  916

  1,617

  East Midlands

  19,896

  1,621

  21,517

  19,103

  8,321

  27,424

  Derby

  1,934

  0

  1,934

  1,845

  859

  2,704

  Derbyshire

  4,243

  0

  4,243

  4,016

  3,099

  7,115

  Leicester3

  2,335

  964

  3,299

  2,146

  1,112

  3,258

  Leicestershire

  87

  0

  87

  129

  639

  768

  Lincolnshire

  1,785

  0

  1,785

  1,749

  41

  1,790

  Northamptonshire

  2,299

  0

  2,299

  2,294

  835

  3,129

  Nottingham3

  2,653

  657

  3,310

  2,509

  700

  3,209

  Nottinghamshire

  4,461

  0

  4,461

  4,328

  1,008

  5,336

  Rutland

  99

  0

  99

  87

  30

  117

  West Midlands

  30,935

  5,188

  36,123

  30,441

  9,450

  39,891

  Birmingham3

  7,294

  3,275

  10,569

  7,200

  3,844

  11,044

  Coventry3

  1,976

  957

  2,933

  1,984

  1,031

  3,015

  Dudley

  2,227

  0

  2,227

  2,336

  738

  3,074

  Herefordshire

  340

  0

  340

  336

  115

  451

  Sandwell3

  3,217

  21

  3,238

  3,059

  100

  3,159

  Shropshire

  424

  0

  424

  499

  309

  808

  Solihull

  1,542

  0

  1,542

  1,499

  59

  1,558

  Staffordshire

  2,561

  0

  2,561

  2,554

  443

  2,997

  Stoke-on-Trent3

  2,032

  285

  2,317

  1,842

  367

  2,209

  Telford and Wrekin3

  541

  464

  1,005

  651

  596

  1,247

  Walsall3

  2,928

  70

  2,998

  2,838

  151

  2,989

  Warwickshire

  1,603

  0

  1,603

  1,473

  813

  2,286

  Wolverhampton3

  2,720

  115

  2,835

  2,584

  134

  2,718

  Worcestershire

  1,530

  0

  1,530

  1,586

  751

  2,337

  East of England

  14,865

  0

  14,865

  15,740

  4,352

  20,092

  Bedfordshire

  1,211

  0

  1,211

  1,202

  218

  1,420

  Cambridgeshire

  1,091

  0

  1,091

  1,154

  867

  2,021

  Essex

  1,961

  0

  1,961

  1,9292

  221

  2,213

  Hertfordshire

  5,890

  0

  5,890

  6,406

  257

  6,663

  Luton

  954

  0

  954

  975

  996

  1,971

  Norfolk

  1,885

  0

  1,885

  1,932

  126

  2,058

  Peterborough

  316

  0

  316

  288

  593

  881

  Southend-on-Sea

  453

  0

  453

  446

  440

  886

  Suffolk

  633

  0

  633

  857

  477

  1,334

  Thurrock

  471

  0

  471

  488

  157

  645

  London

  46,466

  12,138

  58,604

  46,679

  20,825

  67,504

  Inner London

  21,773

  8,567

  30,340

  21,508

  10,078

  31,586

  Camden3

  916

  769

  1,685

  915

  718

  1,633

  City of London

  10

  0

  10

  12

  1

  13

  Hackney3

  1,608

  951

  2,559

  12

  968

  2,488

  Hammersmith and Fulham3

  1,102

  371

  1,473

  1,025

  586

  1,6113

  Haringey3

  1,980

  396

  2,376

  1,932

  486

  2,418

  Islington3

  1,247

  780

  2,027

  1,252

  812

  2,064

  Kensington and Chelsea

  591

  0

  591

  612

  277

  889

  Lambeth3

  1,957

  1,102

  3,059

  1,955

  1,163

  3,118

  Lewisham3

  1,869

  816

  2,685

  1,892

  968

  2,860

  Newham3

  3,462

  448

  3,910

  3,306

  551

  3,857

  Southwark3

  2,214

  745

  2,959

  2,242

  1,150

  3,392

  Tower Hamlets3

  2,347

  315

  2,662

  2,358

  281

  2,639

  Wandsworth3

  1,661

  1,293

  2,954

  1,629

  1,349

  2,978

  Westminster3

  809

  579

  1,388

  858

  768

  1,626

  56W 57W

  Number of three-year-olds taking up free early years education places, England, Government Office regions and each local education authority area 2000–01—Position in January each year

  2000

  2001

  LEA name

  Maintained1

  Private, voluntary and independent providers and other LA provisions2

  All

  Maintained1

  Private, voluntary and independent providers and other LA provision2

  All

  Outer London

  24,693

  3,571

  28,264

  25,171

  10,747

  35,918

  Barking and Dagenham3

  1,393

  294

  1,687

  1,418

  326

  1,744

  Barnet

  2,010

  0

  2,010

  1,995

  389

  2,384

  Bexley

  1,385

  0

  1,385

  1,314

  911

  2,225

  Brent3

  1,684

  754

  2,438

  1,684

  875

  2,559

  Bromley

  242

  0

  242

  247

  428

  675

  Croydon

  1,826

  0

  1,826

  1,894

  623

  2,517

  Ealing3

  2,587

  555

  3,142

  2,604

  527

  3,131

  Enfield

  1,30

  0

  1,230

  1,236

  1,034

  2,270

  Greenwich3

  1,894

  715

  2,609

  1,80

  765

  2,565

  Harrow

  620

  0

  620

  615

  350

  965

  Havering

  550

  0

  550

  603

  1,210

  1,813

  Hillingdon

  1,360

  0

  1,360

  1,813

  119

  1,932

  Hounslow3

  1,523

  479

  2,002

  1,564

  550

  2,114

  Kingston upon Thames

  940

  0

  940

  911

  172

  1,083

  Merton

  1,665

  0

  1,665

  1,707

  117

  1,824

  Redbridge

  1,604

  0

  1,604

  1,587

  852

  2,439

  Richmond upon Thames

  585

  0

  585

  546

  40

  586

  Sutton

  245

  0

  245

  266

  360

  626

  Waltham Forest3

  1,350

  773

  2,123

  1,367

  1,098

  2,465

  South East

  12,585

  736

  13,321

  12,705

  14,254

  26,959

  Bracknell Forest

  111

  0

  111

  147

  735

  882

  Brighton and Hove3

  772

  712

  1,484

  732

  1,032

  1,764

  Buckinghamshire

  686

  0

  686

  790

  404

  1,194

  East Sussex

  570

  0

  570

  588

  1,113

  1,701

  Hampshire

  601

  0

  601

  589

  1,748

  2,337

  Isle of Wight3

  134

  23

  157

  131

  471

  602

  Kent

  1,412

  0

  1,412

  1,494

  818

  2,312

  Medway

  421

  0

  421

  412

  2,119

  2,531

  Milton Keynes

  368

  0

  368

  379

  197

  576

  Oxfordshire

  995

  0

  995

  1,024

  213

  1,237

  Portsmouth

  435

  0

  435

  441

  880

  1,321

  Reading

  738

  0

  738

  716

  202

  918

  Slough

  932

  0

  932

  976

  31

  1,007

  Southampton

  435

  0

  435

  334

  1,346

  1,680

  Surrey

  2,429

  0

  2,429

  2,426

  2,145

  4,571

  West Berkshire

  261

  0

  261

  273

  99

  372

  West Sussex

  838

  0

  838

  816

  441

  1,257

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  306

  0

  306

  306

  226

  532

  Wokingham

  141

  0

  141

  131

  32

  163

  South West

  8,923

  2,023

  10,946

  8,725

  12,375

  21,100

  Bath and North East Somerset

  303

  0

  303

  288

  195

  482

  Bournemouth

  267

  0

  267

  282

  914

  1,196

  Bristol, City of

  2,802

  0

  2,802

  2,653

  1,169

  3,822

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly3

  1,057

  1,666

  2,723

  987

  2,089

  3,076

  Devon

  1,197

  0

  1,197

  1,200

  630

  1,830

  Dorset

  246

  0

  246

  215

  288

  503

  Gloucestershire

  74

  0

  74

  97

  3,385

  3,482

  North somerset

  195

  0

  195

  200

  98

  200

  Plymouth3

  776

  358

  1,134

  744

  1,508

  2,252

  Poole

  78

  0

  78

  92

  742

  834

  Somerset

  474

  0

  474

  503

  217

  720

  South Gloucestershire

  331

  0

  331

  341

  145

  486

  Swindon

  414

  0

  414

  412

  172

  584

  Torbay

  394

  0

  394

  391

  505

  896

  Wiltshire

  315

  0

  315

  320

  319

  639

  1Headcount of children aged three at 31 December in the previous calendar year from Annual Schools' Census.

  2Part-time equivalent number of children aged three at private, voluntary, independent and local authority settings.

  3This LEA received Nursery Education Grant funding for three-year-olds in 1999–2000, there were 65 such LEAs.

  Further Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to encourage more children to continue their education in(a) sixth form and (b) further education colleges. [12404]
  58W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have set out our vision for post-16 learning in the recent White Paper, "Schools: Achieving Success". We want all young people to continue after the age of 16 in high quality learning opportunities which best meet their needs and potential. This may be in school, college or in the work-based route. We have established the Learning and Skills Council to
  59W
  drive this forward and have put in place a number of measures which provide the support and incentives young people need to take up and succeed in learning. We are introducing the new Connexions service to provide advice and guidance to young people on the full range of learning options open to them and to help them progress within their chosen learning environment. We are also addressing the financial barriers to participation through piloting the education maintenance allowance scheme; providing discretionary funding targeted at specific learner needs, and the Connexions card, which offered discounts on transport and learning materials.

  Violent and Disruptive Pupils
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will introduce legislation to deal with pupils who are violent and disruptive in the classroom and who threaten(a) teachers and (b) other classmates. [12582]

  Mr. Timms
  We will not tolerate violent or abusive behaviour towards teachers or pupils. Parenting orders may already be sought in cases where pupils have committed a criminal act. Our recent "Schools: Achieving Success" White Paper highlights our plans to extend the use of parenting orders so that they can be activated following violence or persistent misbehaviour by pupils at school. Parenting orders provide guidance to parents in managing challenging behaviour and their wider use would encourage parents to take more responsibility for behaviour in school.

  We have also made it clear to schools that if a pupil is violent to classmates or persistently bullies them, or if they are violent or threaten violence to teachers, head teachers have the legal power to exclude that pupil permanently. While recognising that permanent exclusion is a serious matter, we plan to require in legislation that exclusion appeal panels balance the excluded pupil's interests against those of all other members of the school community.

  School Grounds (Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which school grounds in Sussex have been sold since May 1997. [12596]

  Mr. Timms
  No data were collected centrally on how many school grounds were sold before October 1998. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced in October 1998 to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields. Before October 1998, there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling school playing fields if it wanted to. As local authorities and governing bodies of all maintained schools are now required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of playing fields or any part of a playing field, which can be said to comprise school grounds, we have collected information about the sale of school playing fields since October 1998. For the purposes of answering the question I have, therefore, equated school grounds to school playing fields.
  60W
  Since 1 October 1998, the Secretary of State has approved the sale of various areas of school grounds that fall within the definition of school playing fields under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 at the following schools in West Sussex and East Sussex:

  Beacon Community College, Crowborough;

  Bamham Primary School, Bognor Regis;

  Chichester High School for Girls, Chichester;

  Lindfield Junior School, Haywards Heath1;

  The Forest School, Horsham;

  Hazelwick School, Crawley;

  Catherington Special School, Crawley, and

  Deerswood Special School, Crawley.

  1School closed 31 August 2000

  Student Support
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the evidence that informed her judgment relating to the impact on the Government's target for 18 to 30-year-olds in higher education of the current system of student support. [11580]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Last month my right hon. Friend announced the review of student support which, in seeking to get the right balance between the contributions made by the state, the parent and the graduate, has the explicit aim of ensuring that we reach our target of 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds having the opportunity to participate in higher education. In particular, the review will consider, in relation to the current system of student support, concerns expressed about the impact of debt, or perceptions of future debt, which have been identified in the 1998–99 student income and expenditure report, the DfES research report, "Social Class and Higher Education: Issues Affecting Decisions on Participation by Lower Social Class Groups" (2001), and elsewhere. We want to ensure opportunities for all and are reviewing student funding to remove obstacles that might deter potential students from low-income families participating in higher education.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Leisure Services (Lee Valley)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on leisure services operated by the Lee Valley Authority. [10029]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority is a statutory authority funded from a levy on all 32 London boroughs, Thurrock borough council and Hertfordshire and Essex county councils.

  The Park Authority has a specific remit to regenerate the 12,500 acres of the Lee Valley as a regional park and to provide high quality regional sports and leisure facilities. The Park Authority is in the process of developing its facilities in accordance with its 10-year business plan published in 2000.

  Sport (Centres of Excellence)
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on regional centres of excellence for sports. [10030]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government remain committed to the development of the United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI) and good progress is being made in its establishment. Centres in Scotland and Wales are now operational; the English Institute is developing apace and it is hoped that work on the Northern Ireland Institute will begin soon. It is vital now that all those agencies with an interest in elite sport work together collectively to assist athletes achieve their ultimate goal.

  Ofcom
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her plans for representation for Wales on the proposed Ofcom. [10031]

  Dr. Howells
  The draft Communications Bill to be published in spring 2002 will contain details of how the interests of Wales will be represented within Ofcom.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the effects of foot and mouth disease on the hotel industry. [10032]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Department's best estimate is that revenue loss to the English tourism industry overall is likely to be around £3.3 billion in "value added" terms. The effects of FMD on the tourism industry, including the hotel sector, have been uneven, some areas have done well, others have been hit disproportionately hard. The Government introduced a package of recovery assistance for rural businesses, including tourism businesses, affected by the consequent implications of foot and mouth disease. In total, these measures will bring benefits to businesses of over £300 million.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the effects of foot and mouth disease on the tourism industry in England. [10053]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's best estimate is that the revenue loss to the English tourism industry for March to October is likely to be around £3.3 billion in "value added" terms.

  An additional £3.8 million was provided to the English Tourism Council in April for immediate recovery work. The British Tourist Authority has received an additional £14.2 million for marketing and promotion. The Regional Development Agency business recovery fund, established in April, is designed to provide targeted help for rural businesses, including tourism businesses, affected by the consequent implications of foot and mouth disease. On 18 October, the Government allocated a further £24 million to the fund taking the total to £74 million. The fund is one element in a package of recovery assistance for tourism that includes business rate relief and deferral of tax payments. These measures and existing programmes will help to encourage tourism.

  British Cultural Identity
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will introduce plans to encourage the celebration of British cultural identity. [10033]

  Dr. Howells
  British cultural identity can be expressed through buildings and institutions, through the heritage and history of our communities, through art, literature, television and radio, through an appreciation of our countryside and landscape, and most of all through the diversity of the British people and their everyday lives. It is celebrated each day in theatres, halls, libraries, museums and galleries, in cinemas and sports stadiums up and down the country, finding expression in the talent and participation of people of all ages. This Department will continue to give people and communities the confidence and resources fully to express and to celebrate their cultural identity in an atmosphere of tolerance, openness and respect.

  Equal Opportunities
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she has taken to promote equal opportunities among the non-departmental public bodies which her Department funds. [10034]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am determined that the Boards of my Department's public bodies reflect the diversity of the society they serve and have set challenging targets for the representation of women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people. We are currently reviewing our appointments equal opportunities action plan which is published annually, together with those of other Departments, in "Quangos-Opening up Public Appointments", which is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Community Sport
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to give children more opportunities to participate in sport in the community. [10035]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has a PSA target to raise significantly year on year the average time spent on sport and physical activity by those aged six to 16. A key element of the School Sport Co-ordinator programme, which will see a network of 1,000 co-ordinators in secondary schools across the country, is to encourage better links between schools and community sports clubs. We will also ensure that facilities refurbished or built under the Space for Sport and Arts initiative and the New Opportunities Fund's PE and School Sport programme will be available for both school and community use. In addition, Sport England's Active Sports programme aims to work through local centres, coaches and clubs to enable young people to participate in sport more frequently, improve their skills and compete at various levels.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the facilities available for sport in the community. [10049]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England estimates that there are over 6,300 sports hall and swimming pool facilities and approximately 500 synthetic turf pitches in England which
  63W
  meet Sport England's minimum standards in terms of size and community access. In addition there are many smaller community indoor facilities which are used for a range of community activities other than sport.

  National Stadium
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on when Britain will have a national stadium. [10037]

  Mr. Caborn
  Scotland and Wales already have national stadiums.

  Whether the current English National Stadium project can be developed depends to a great extent on whether the Football Association—whose events are crucial to the viability of the stadium—actually want to proceed with the National Stadium.

  The discussions between Patrick Carter and the Football Association are intended to clarify the Football Association's position. The Government will, of course respond, to any proposals but we have made it clear that no taxpayers money will be committed to develop the stadium.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on a national stadium for England. [10041]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 19 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1380–81W.

  Community Radio Licences
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the result of the latest bids for community radio licences will be announced. [10038]

  Dr. Howells
  The Radio Authority is responsible for licensing and regulating Independent Radio. I understand that the Radio Authority are is to announce its decision about the award of the Independent Local Radio licence to serve the town of Reading in February 2002.

  Coalfield Communities (Lottery Funding)
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress she has made in ensuring that coalfield communities receive a greater share of national lottery proceeds. [10040]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department and Lottery distributors commissioned Sheffield Hallam University to research the impact of the Lottery on the coalfields and we have been working with coalfield groups to take forward recommendations to improve the take-up of funding in such areas. I shall publish a report tomorrow (6 November) on the progress made.

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has had regarding gaming machines in private clubs. [10042]
  64W
  Mr. Caborn
  We have received a substantial number of representations about the recommendation that jackpot gaming machines should not be allowed in such clubs. We are considering them, but have not yet reached any conclusions. We intend to make an announcement about the report as a whole early next year.

  Gambling Review
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the gambling review. [10044]

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the gaming review. [10494]

  Mr. Caborn
  When we published the report of the gambling review body we initiated a period of consultation which ended on 31 October. We are now considering all the responses and intend to announce our conclusions early next year.

  Picketts Lock
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the decision to abandon Picketts Lock as a venue for the world athletics championships. [10046]

  Tessa Jowell
  Patrick Carter's report on the Lee Valley project was completed on 31 August. The report concluded that the level of risk facing the project had reached such a stage as to make it unsustainable.

  Having discussed his conclusions in detail with Sport England, the Government needed to decide whether to invest significant amounts of new money in the project to make it sustainable or whether to look to alternatives. Patrick Carter took the view that even with significant additional funding, the Lee Valley project still faced the very real prospect of being a substandard event due to transport, infrastructure and athlete accommodation difficulties.

  The Government were not willing to see the United Kingdom proceed to stage a substandard event and with Sport England's agreement, decided to terminate the project on 4 October.

  Dual Use Stadiums
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the viability of dual use stadiums with retractable seating for football and athletics; and if she will make a statement. [10047]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have made no specific assessment of the viability of dual use stadiums.

  Eden Project
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress on the Eden project. [10048]
  65W
  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  S4C
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the subsidy paid to S4C; and if she will make a statement. [10050]

  Dr. Howells
  It is an important principle that broadcasters should be independent of Government. In accordance with this principle the funding paid to S4C to provide a Welsh language broadcasting service is set by the formula in section 80 of the Broadcasting Act 1996.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State lays an annual report and statement of accounts prepared by S4C before Parliament annually.

  World Cup
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the network television broadcasting of World Cup matches in the United Kingdom. [10051]

  Tessa Jowell
  The whole of the World Cup Finals tournament is protected as a listed event in the UK, reflecting its importance to many millions of people. I therefore welcome the announcement made by the BBC and ITV on 18 October that they have signed an exclusive deal to broadcast the World Cup Finals tournaments in 2002 and 2006. This deal upholds the objective of the listed events legislation and will ensure that UK viewers are able to watch the entire 2002 and 2006 tournaments live on free-to-air, terrestrial television.

  Sports Coaching
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of the Minister for Sport of 16 July 2001,Official Report, column 4, if she will report the outcome of the meeting of 28 June on sports coaching facilities, and outline progress of subsequent meetings. [10052]

  Mr. Caborn
  At the first meeting of the coaching task force on 28 June the Terms of Reference set out in "The Government's Plan for Sport" were agreed and three sub-groups were established. The sub-groups have met on a number of occasions and reported back to the second meeting of the taskforce on 25 September. This meeting considered a draft model for a national coaching qualification and agreed to undertake an international bench-marking exercise on coaching structures in a number of other countries. The next meeting of the taskforce will take place on 22 November.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for parents and grandparents to take basic sport coaching courses; and what links they will have to the National Experience Corps. [12226]

  Mr. Caborn
  The coaching taskforce established earlier this year has a remit to review the co-ordination of coach education and training. As part of the groups' wider 66W
  tasks they are currently exploring the opportunities for encouraging more parents and grandparents to become involved in coaching.

  My Department are currently examining ways in which the National Experience Corps can contribute to achieving this aim.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to promote coaching skills among parents. [12530]

  Mr. Caborn
  The coaching taskforce established earlier this year has a remit to review the co-ordination of coach education and training. As part of the groups' wider tasks they are currently exploring the opportunities for encouraging more parents to become involved in coaching.

  Museum and Gallery Entry
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress she has made towards ensuring free entry to national museums and galleries. [10043]

  Tessa Jowell
  Our policy is to encourage all museums to offer the widest possible access to their collections. We have enabled those museums and galleries funded by my Department which already offer free admission to continue to offer it. We have scrapped entry charges for children and people over 60 at the main museums and galleries sponsored by my Department that currently charge and have made available from 1 December 2001 additional resources to allow them to introduce free admission for all from that date.

  The restoration of free access will enable the greatest collections we have, built up by public funds over generations, to be available to everyone, no matter what their income or background.

  Lottery Moneys
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total amount of lottery moneys paid by parliamentary constituency in each of the last four years. [11859]

  Mr. Caborn
  I will place copies of the information requested in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to review the procedure for awarding the national lottery operating licence. [12983]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following the announcement earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that the Government would review the process for selecting the national lottery operator, we are now considering options for change and will be seeking the views of interested parties. We expect to publish our conclusions next year as the basis for wider public consultation.

  Public Libraries
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in improving the service provided by public libraries. [10036]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government have encouraged better planning and accountability in public library services through the introduction of Annual Library Plans and a more rigorous enforcement of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Standards of service for library authorities were introduced from 1 April this year. Additionally, £170 million of lottery money is being made available to libraries through the People's Network programme to upgrade their ICT infrastructure, create innovative digital content and train library staff in the use of ICT.

  Sport and Recreation Facilities
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what figures she has collated on spending by local authorities in England on sport and recreation facilities since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [10026]

  Tessa Jowell
  Local authorities are key providers of sport and recreation and play a central role in the delivery of sport in and for the community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions publishes annual figures on spending by local authorities on sport and recreation. Since 1997 local authorities have spent over £549 million on new construction, conversion and renovation of sport and recreation facilities, which includes a substantial investment from the national lottery, to improve facilities for local communities.

TREASURY

  Cancer Patients
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of prostate cancer patients live for at least five years after treatment in the United Kingdom, and what is the average such percentage in the European Union; [11869]

  (2)what percentage of leukaemia sufferers live for at least five years after treatment in the United Kingdom, and what is the average such percentage in the European Union; [11870]

  (3)what percentage of breast cancer patients live for at least five years after the treatment in the United Kingdom; and what the average such percentage is in the European Union. [11871]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the national statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Robyn Lynch to Mr. John Bercow, dated 5 November 2001 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on the percentage of prostate cancer patients, leukaemia sufferers and breast cancer patients that live at least five years after treatment in the United Kingdom and the average such percentages in the European Union. (11869. 11870, 11871). I am replying in his absence.
  68W
  The information requested is not available.
  However, the latest available comparable rates of survival from time of diagnosis for England, Scotland and some other countries in Europe were published in Berrino F. Capocaccia R, Estéve J, Gatta G, Hakulinen T, Micheli M, Sant M, Verdecchia A (eds). Survival of cancer patients in Europèhe EUROCARE-2 study. (IARC Scientific Publications No.151. Lyons: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1999).
  A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mobile Phone Licences
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the(a) Department of Trade and Industry and (b) Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions concerning 3G mobile phone licences. [12405]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets regularly with Cabinet colleagues and others to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Illegally Imported Alcohol
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue lost each year to the Treasury because of illegally imported alcohol; and what plans he has to reduce the loss. [10410]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: Estimates of alcohol fraud were published in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General "Losses to the Revenue from Frauds on Alcohol Duty" (HC 178) in July 2001.

  Details of the Government strategy to tackle alcohol fraud will be published in due course.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the target of HM Customs and Excise is for detecting notifiable export irregularities. [11166]

  Mr. Boateng
  Targets for the number of notifiable export irregularities detected are not set.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made since 11 September of the priority given by HM Customs and Excise to detecting notifiable import and export irregularities. [11165]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs continue to deploy resources on the basis of intelligence and assessment of risk. Many of the potential risks which can result in notifiable import and export irregularities are unaffected by the 11 September events. Where intelligence or risk assessment indicates an increased risk a higher priority is afforded.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many and in what percentage of searches of premises by HM Customs and Excise were(a) smuggled goods and (b) other evidence relating to an offence discovered in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to date. [11167]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  69W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many searches of premises were conducted by HM Customs and Excise(a) by consent, (b) by warrant and (c) by writ of assistance in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to date. [11168]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not yet available. For the y ear 1999–2000 there were 298 searches of premises conducted by consent, 265 conducted by warrant and 183 by writ of assistance in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases were taken to court for Common Agricultural Policy export refund offences and irregularities levied by the Intervention Board as a result of Customs detections; what was the total overclaim value of those cases; and what was the total sum of penalties awarded in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date. [11173]

  Mr. Boateng
  There were no cases taken to court by HM Customs and Excise for Common Agricultural Policy export refund offences in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and no cases to date for 2001–02.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people were detained after arrest by HM Customs and Excise in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date; and how many such people were subsequently (i) charged, (ii) released on payment of a compound settlement and (iii) released for other reasons; [11170]

  (2) how many people were kept in Customs detention for more than 24 hours in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date; and how many people in each year were subsequently released without charge. [11171]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not yet available.

  1999–2000

  England and Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Number of persons:

  Detained after arrest

  3,595

  89

  Detained for more than 24 hours and subsequently released without charge

  25

  0

  Number of persons for whom warrants for further detention were:

  Applied for

  27

  0

  Granted1

  26

  0

  1
  in this instance, the number of persons:

  Charged

  46

  0

  Released on payment of a settlement

  5

  0

  Number of persons:

  Charged

  1,563

  18

  Released on payment of a settlement

  310

  1

  Released for other reasons

  0

  0

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions were brought by HM Customs and Excise in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date in cases where the offence is registrable under the Sex Offenders Act 1997. [11169]
  70W
  Mr. Boateng
  As part of the multi-agency approach to combating paedophile activity both Customs and Excise and the police bring prosecutions following the investigation of detections of material by Customs.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total number of prosecutions

  33

  29

  Police

  14

  14

  HM Customs

  19

  15

  The figures for 2001–02 are incomplete.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many searches of persons carried out by Customs and Excise officers related to(a) drugs, (b) revenue goods and (c) other prohibited or restricted goods in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to date; and what percentages of the number of searches conducted this represented in each case. [11197]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Individual Pension Account
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to introduce the individual pension account. [12450]

  Ruth Kelly
  The individual pensions account was introduced in Budget 2001. They have been available since April 2001.

  FRS 17 Regulations
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the FRS 17 regulations on portfolio decisions of pension fund managers; and if he will make a statement. [12451]

  Ruth Kelly
  FRS 17, like the other financial reporting standards, is a matter for the Accounting Standards Board.

  Kingscrest Case
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 127W, on care homes, what steps his Department has taken to challenge the decision of the London VAT tribunal. [12162]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are of the clear view that care of vulnerable people provided in residential homes should not be subject to VAT.

  Customs and Excise appealed against this tribunal decision. The appeal is expected to be heard early in the new year.

  Landfill Tax Credit
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which organisations and individuals he has(a) already consulted and (b) plans to consult on the future of landfill tax credit; and when the consultations took place; [12982]

  (2) when he plans to make an announcement on the future of landfill tax credit. [12981]
  71W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are committed to meeting the challenging targets for waste recycling set out in Waste Strategy 2000. As stated in Budget 2001, it is attracted to replacing all or part of the landfill tax credit scheme with a public spending programme to direct resources towards Government priorities on sustainable waste management. The Government, together with the devolved Administrations, are now beginning work on developing options for a spending programme for consideration as part of Spending Review 2002. In taking forward this work, the Government will consult with interested parties on the shape of any replacement scheme and the transition to any replacement.

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 375W, and 30 October 2001, Official Report, column 625W, on brownfield sites, what information he has (a) collated and (b) published on the take-up of the tax credit for clearing and developing brownfield sites. [12414]

  Mr. Boateng
  No estimates are currently available for the take up of this measure. Tax relief for expenditure on the remediation of contaminated land will be claimed in the tax return of the company undertaking the remediation work and those returns do not have to be filed until 12 months after the end of the accounting period concerned. Relief is available in respect of land remediation expenditure incurred on or after 11 May 2001, therefore those companies who take advantage of this relief are unlikely to file their tax returns until May 2002 at the earliest. Information provided in those returns is covered by the normal rules on taxpayer confidentiality.

  Tobin Tax
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with his European colleagues on the Tobin tax; and if he will make a statement. [9849]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Tobin tax was discussed by European Finance Ministers during the 22 September informal ECOFIN meeting in Liege. Ministers agreed to further work into the economic implications and practical issues raised by the Tobin tax as part of a wider study into the challenges of globalisation.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the Tobin tax. [8750]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury has received correspondence from the public and non-governmental organisations, as well as academic assessments of the Tobin tax, and there have been meetings with nongovernmental organisations and academics to discuss the issues.

  The Tobin tax was also discussed by European Finance Ministers during the 22 September informal ECOFIN meeting in Liege. Ministers agreed to further work into the economic implications and practical issues raised by the Tobin tax as part of a wider study into the challenges of globalisation.

  Church Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his policy on making a grant available for the repair of churches in lieu of reducing VAT; and what representations he has received on this subject. [11982]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor's long-term objective is to reduce the VAT rate levied on repairs to listed places of worship from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. This is not permitted under current European Community legislation, but the European Commission has indicated that it will look at the UK's proposal to amend the VAT rules when these are reviewed in 2003. In the interim, the Chancellor has decided to introduce a grant scheme which will award the differential between the 17.5 per cent. and 5 per cent. rate to qualifying buildings. This scheme has been widely welcomed by owners of listed places of worship. It represents significant additional funds for this group—initial estimates are up to £30 million per year.

  Sustainable Waste Management
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the performance of the environmental bodies in meeting his indicative guidelines for spending on sustainable waste management projects in the last 12 months. [12044]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is too early to make any meaningful assessment. In May this year the Government set the waste industry a challenging target of 65 per cent. of landfill tax credits to be allocated to sustainable waste management projects. The Government will review progress in forthcoming budget reports.

  Bank Disclosures
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 204W, on bank disclosures, what(a) barriers to and (b) opportunities for growth in the individual banks' lending activities in disadvantaged communities he has identified; and if he will make a statement. [12446]

  Ruth Kelly
  The barriers and opportunities to banks' lending activities in disadvantaged communities are identified in several reports including:"Enterprise and Social Exclusion, Policy Action Team 3" (HM Treasury November 1999).
  "Enterprising Communities: Wealth Beyond Welfare" (Social Investment Task Force, October 2000).
  "Finance for Small Businesses in Deprived Communities" (Bank of England November 2000).

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the World Economic Forum calculation of the change in the ranking of the United Kingdom in the league table of competitiveness from 1998 to 2000. [12538]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 640W, regarding the World Economic Forum's growth competitiveness index.
  73W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the Institute of Management Development calculation of the change in the ranking of the United Kingdom in the league table of competitiveness from 1997 to 2001. [12535]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkstone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 640W.

  Market Abuse Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on his position in regard to the proposed EU market abuse directive; [12392]

  (2) what the forecast cost to the UK financial services industry is of the proposed EU market abuse directive. [12391]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government support the Commission's objectives of developing the single market in financial services and promoting the integrity of the single market. The proposal for the directive creates for the first time an EU-wide regime to counter market manipulation and updates the existing insider dealing provisions to enable them to benefit from the enhanced co-operation measures.

  The Government will examine the proposal carefully to ensure that there is no diminution in the level of protection from market manipulation currently enjoyed by UK markets, that the level of regulation proposed is proportionate and consistent with the goal of advancing the single market in financial services, and that any consequent changes to the UK's new market abuse regime are kept to a minimum.

  Since the United Kingdom has a rigorous market abuse regime under part VIII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 due to come into force shortly, United Kingdom firms should already have in place measures to counter abusive behaviour.

  However, the directive as currently drafted would require some modifications to the existing regulatory regime. The inflexible regulatory approach taken in the current draft of the directive could give rise to additional compliance costs as firms incur legal costs on advice to avoid behaviour that could give rise to enforcement actions.

  The Government's goal in negotiations is to minimise the need for modification of the current regulatory regime to ensure the directive effectively tackles market abuse and does not impose additional, unnecessary costs.

  Charities (Taxation)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the taxation of charities. [12331]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government keep all taxes under review and decisions are made as part of the normal Budget process. In April 2000 the Government introduced a number of measures to help charities and to improve incentives for charitable giving. The Getting Britain Giving package of measures included improvements to the Gift Aid and Payroll Giving schemes and a new 74W
  income tax relief for giving shares to charities. The Government are supporting the Giving Campaign, an independent charities-led initiative, to encourage a culture of giving arid increase awareness of planned tax efficient giving.

  Business Start-up Tax Credits
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the provision of business start-up tax credits in the Objective 1 areas. [12397]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government published proposals in March 2001 for a new community investment tax credit to increase the availability of capital to small enterprises, including start-ups, in disadvantaged communities. Details of the proposal can be found in the Treasury consultation document "Enterprising Communities: A Tax Incentive for Community Investment".

  Office of Government Commerce
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the saving to public funds that will be realised by the establishment of the Office of Government Commerce. [11842]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The OGC has been set a target to deliver £1 billion value for money gains across central Government by 2002–03. This will be achieved by Departments applying the tools, methods and techniques promoted by OGC.

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes in the rate of value added tax have been introduced since 1 May 1997. [11378]

  Mr. Boateng
  Changes up to 1 January 2001 are published in table C6 of the tables and statistics accompanying the Customs and Excise annual report for 2000, available on the Customs and Excise website.

  Changes to VAT rates announced in the Budget of 7 March 2001 were published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001.

  Mortgage Lenders (Fees)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to prohibit the practice of mortgage lenders charging their customers a fee should they move their mortgage to an alternative mortgage lender. [11966]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are legitimate reasons for lenders to charge fees, not least the administration costs that are involved in transferring deeds to other lenders, together with the essential correspondence that needs to be entered into between borrower and (both) lenders as well as between lenders. Moreover, there is clear disclosure of these fees upfront in line with the benchmarks set out in CAT standard mortgages. I do not therefore propose to prohibit this practice.

  Tobacco
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the tax revenue received in each of the last three financial years from the sale of(a) cigars and (b) cigarettes. [12164]
  75W
  Mr. Boateng
  Duty receipts from sales of tobacco products are published in chapter C of the Government's annual Financial Statement and Budget Report. Duty receipts from sales of individual types of tobacco products are set out on a regular basis in the HM Customs and Excise "Tobacco Factsheet", available from the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the mean annual revenue in terms of(a) tobacco tax and (b) VAT on combined cost of tobacco products and the duty thereon imposed, from each smoker in the UK in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 2000–01; and if he will estimate the mean annual combined tobacco tax and VAT revenue to be raised from each smoker in the UK in 2001–02. [9172]

  Mr. Boateng
  No accurate estimates are currently available.

  Correspondence
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to respond to the letter of the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on fiscal variations; and if he will make a statement. [12396]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  All representations in advance of the 2002 Budget will be considered carefully in the normal way.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the value of cross-Channel smuggling in summer(a) 2001 and (b) 2000. [9173]

  Mr. Boateng
  For Customs' estimate of cross-Channel smuggling in 2000 I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave to the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 7 March 2001,Official Report, columns 229–30W. Results from the first year of the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" strategy, including Customs' estimate of cross-Channel smuggling in 2001, will be published at the time of the pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the share of the tobacco market represented by illicit supplies in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 to the most recent date for which information is available. [9174]

  Mr. Boateng
  Results from the first year of the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" strategy, including the level of the illicit market for 2000–01, will be published at the time of the pre-Budget report. Customs estimate of the size of the illicit market during 2001–02 will be published on a full financial year basis during 2002–03.

  Cigarette Seizures
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cigarettes were seized by HM Customs and Excise in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 to the latest date for which information is available to him. [9180]

  Mr. Boateng
  Results from the first year of the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" strategy, including the number of cigarettes seized during 2000–01, will be 76W
  published at the time of the pre-Budget report. Customs cigarette seizures for 2001–02 will be published on a full financial year basis during 2002–03.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Travel Warrants (Members' Spouses)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the President of the Council what plans there are to increase the number of travel warrants available to the spouses of Members each year. [11082]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I am not aware of any such plans. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise the matter with the Speaker's Advisory Panel, which considers such matters.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS

  Special Advisers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many special advisers employed by the Government participate directly with civil service press and public relations staff in the planning and implementation of press and media announcements. [10961]

  Mr. Leslie
  Special advisers advise Ministers on the development of Government policy and its presentation, liaising as necessary with civil service press officers.

  Civil Service (Departmental Changes)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the net effect on full-time employee headcount of the civil service of the departmental changes announced in June. [12049]

  Mr. Leslie
  Central data on civil service personnel is collected twice yearly on the basis of staff in post at 1 April and 1 October. Changes in civil service staffing levels, including any attributable to the departmental changes announced in June, will not therefore become apparent until figures for October 2001 are available.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Deaths (Registration)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will take steps to change the law on the registration of deaths to ensure equality of treatment as between married and unmarried couples. [11961]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1998, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury commissioned the Registrar-General to carry out a fundamental review of the civil registration service in England and Wales. This was in recognition of the fact that much of the civil registration system is outdated and does not meet the needs of today's society.

  In September 1999, the Registrar-General published a consultation paper, 'Registration: Modernising a Vital Service'. The consultation period ended on 6 December

  77W
  1999. The responses have been used to set out options for the future development of the registration service, so that it can adapt to the changing needs and attitudes of a modern society.

  Many of the responses to the consultation document were in support of equality of treatment for men and women in the records of births, deaths and marriages. Proposals on how this could be achieved are now being formulated and the intention is to publish a policy paper in due course.

  Georgina McCarthy
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action she intends to take on the Family Law Act Sub-Committee's report on the murder of Georgina McCarthy. [11723]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Sub-Committee's recommendations are currently being considered by a working party of the inter-departmental group on Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. The working group, which comprises officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department, Home Office and Department of Health, met on 1 November 2001. Areas were identified for action by each Department and work has begun on developing an inter-departmental strategy to deal with the issue of improving co-operation between the criminal and civil/family jurisdictions.

  Bailiff Law
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to reform bailiff law. [11724]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 451W.

  The consultation period for the Green Paper 'Towards Effective Enforcement' ended on 12 October 2001. We are very grateful to the wide range of individuals and organisations who have used their time and expertise to respond to the Green Paper.

  The responses are currently being analysed by the Enforcement Review Team.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available, how many applications for legal aid in claims for clinical negligence against the NHS were(a) accepted and (b) rejected. [11956]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission does not record case data in a way that would enable an answer to be given to the exact question asked.

  The number of certificates issued by the Commission for legal aid relating to all claims for clinical negligence was as follows:

  (a) in 1996–97: 9,165;

  (b) in 1997–98: 11,899;

  (c) in 1998–99: 7,867;

  78W

  (d) in 1999–2000: 7,375; and

  (e) in 2000–01: 7,329.

  It is not possible to say, at this level of detail, how many applications were accepted and rejected. Approximate refusal rates are available for the last two years:

  in 1999–2000: 10 per cent.

  in 2000–01: 8 per cent.

  In addition to this refusal rate, a number of offers of legal aid are not pursued. This figure is in the order of 10 per cent. of applications received.

  It is not possible to separate applications from claimants and defendants, or those which involve the NHS from those which do not.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost, in each of the last five years for which figures are available, of legal aid in claims for clinical negligence against the NHS. [11955]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission does not record case data in a way that would enable an answer to be given to the exact question asked.

  The Commission records the value of main bills paid, comprising solicitors' costs, disbursements and counsels' fees. The total figures for each year also include the value of claims which are met in full by the opponents. The net cost to the Commission of clinical negligence cases is therefore less than the figures given:

  (a) in 1996–97: £56.9 million;

  (b) in 1997–98: £64.4 million;

  (c) in 1998–99: £64.6 million;

  (d) in 1999–2000: £60.6 million; and

  (e) in 2000–01: £52.8 million.

  It is not possible to separate claims against the NHS from claims against GPs and dentists; or can the Commission differentiate between NHS defendants and non-NHS defendants.

  Prior to the introduction of civil contracting in January 2000, clinical negligence was not separately identified as a category of advice work. The figures therefore do not provide information regarding payments for advice and assistance work done under the former 'green form' system.

  Magistrates Courts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord. Chancellor's Department how many court cases in magistrates courts have been abandoned in each of the last five years owing to non-appearance of(a) witnesses and (b) police witnesses. [12604]

  Mr. Wills
  Information has not been collected nationally on cases which have been abandoned. From 1 January 2002, a joint scheme will be implemented in England and Wales to collect data on the reasons for Cracked, Ineffective and Vacated trials in the magistrates courts.

  Working Group on Gender Allocation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a further statement on progress of the Home Office Working Group on Gender Allocation. [11802]
  79W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This subject was transferred from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department in the recent machinery of Government changes. The Report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People was presented to Parliament in July 2002. The report has been carefully considered within Government and by other interested groups. The Government are sympathetic to the issues raised in the report and are considering further how to take the matter forward.

  Induction and Accommodation Centres
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice and representation will be available to asylum seekers in induction and accommodation centres. [11910]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 642.

  Details of the services that will be available in induction and accommodation centres will appear in the White Paper, which my right hon. Friend announced on 29 October 2001.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were classified as category A prisoners in prisons in England and Wales as at 1 July. [4782]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional information shows that on 1 July 2001 there were four female category A prisoners in prisons in England and Wales, all of which were adults, compared with 955 category A adult males, and 14 category A male young offenders.

  Personal Identity Documents
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance the Government give to Departments in cases involving the loss of personal identity documents(a) when they are being held by Departments and (b) in other circumstances. [10073]

  Angela Eagle
  Staff in Home Office departments handling documents of identity are instructed to treat them with proper regard to security.

  Where it is confirmed after a thorough search that a document has been lost in the department, the document is replaced at the expense of the department. The circumstances are investigated and the situation monitored.

  Losses in other circumstances are investigated wherever possible and the situation monitored to identify trends. Where appropriate, information to help prevent fraudulent use of documents is shared with other Departments. No general guidance to other Departments is issued.

  Road Traffic Offences (Fines)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much revenue was generated from fines for road traffic offences in the last 12 months. [11563]

  Mr. Denham
  Available information taken from the 1999 Home Office Motoring Offences (Court Proceedings) Database shows that the amount (£) of fines imposed at all courts for road traffic offences within England and Wales, was £57 million.

  3.1 million fixed penalty notices were issued for road traffic offences in 1999 amounting to £80 million.

  Religious Discrimination
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 2001,Official Report, column 1399W, on religious discrimination, if he will list the research participants who have been consulted; and if he will put copies of their evidence in the Library. [11066]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The research participants in question took part in a research project commissioned by the Home Office into religious discrimination. They included representatives of religious organisations and representatives of secular agencies in the public, private and voluntary sectors throughout England and Wales.

  I am not able to disclose their personal details as the organisations and participants were assured their responses would be confidential, as is standard practice in social surveys. In fact, researchers at the University of Derby (who conducted the research) removed all names and addresses before they sent us a copy of the survey data, which again is proper procedure.

  This research produced two reports published in the Home Office Research Study series in February 2001;

  1. "Religious discrimination in England and Wales" (ISBN 1 84082 612 6). One of the findings from this report was referred to in my last correspondence. This report provides full details of the survey findings; and

  2. "Tackling religious discrimination: practical implications for policy-makers and legislators" (ISBN 1 84082 613 4). This is a separate report produced by the Cambridge Centre for Public Law and looks at the practical implications of the findings from the survey.

  As with all our publications in the Home Office Research Study series, these reports are available in the Library.

  Refugees
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what security profile is carried out on refugees arriving in the UK. [8150]

  Angela Eagle
  All arriving passengers are presented to the United Kingdom immigration controls where they are examined by an immigration officer before being allowed into the UK.

  That examination includes checking personal details against the Immigration Service Warnings Index. The Warnings Index computer system is the primary tool for providing information to staff operating the immigration entry control. It maintains records of passengers who

  81W
  have, for example, previously been refused entry or been deported, and also contains information for the purposes of national security and the detection and prevention of crime. All Immigration Service staff at control points have access to the Warnings Index and portable equipment is available for use elsewhere when needed. All arriving asylum applicants are checked against the system.

  Foreign Armed Forces (UK Citizens)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking concerning British citizens who serve with the Taliban forces. [11981]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: It is wrong to take up arms against British soldiers and their allies.

  Generally British citizens are free to travel abroad and it would not be practical to investigate every individual's intentions. However, anyone considering fighting with the Taliban will know it is wrong to take up arms against British soldiers and their allies, and should be aware that they may be laying themselves open to criminal sanctions, including for treason.

  In addition, individuals who are committing offences here under the Terrorism Act 2000 can be detained by the police for investigation.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on dealing with British citizens apprehended in Afghanistan taking arms against British military personnel, on their return to the UK. [12602]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on 2 November 2001,Official Report, column 862W.

  Victims of Torture
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance is offered to asylum seekers who make an application to enter the UK on the basis of providing evidence that they are the victims of torture. [11663]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: A person making an application for asylum may be issued with a Statement of Evidence Form (SEF). This has an accompanying explanatory note about the role of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.

  Those who are not given a SEF will be interviewed shortly after having made an asylum claim and if they raise the issue of torture during the course of their interview, the interviewing officer may advise them to get a medical report. The interviewing officer may also refer them to specialist organisations that might be able to assist them, such as the medical foundation.

  All interviewing officers are trained to deal with victims of torture and have access to guidelines setting out how to interview such people.

  All asylum seekers who are supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are provided with guidance notes explaining that they have access to the national health service (NHS).

  Cannabis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) arrested and charged with and (b) convicted of cannabis possession in (i) the Thames Valley police authority area and (ii) every other police authority area in each of the last four years. [11875]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Arrest data are not collected centrally by individual offence.

  Information from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database showing the number of persons convicted of the possession of cannabis by police force area during the period 1997–2000 is given in the table.

  Number of persons convicted at all courts for the possession of cannabis by police force area in England and Wales 1997–2000

  Police force area

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Avon and Somerset

  140

  201

  260

  311

  Bedfordshire

  227

  290

  248

  212

  Cambridgeshire

  154

  152

  147

  88

  Cheshire

  375

  505

  537

  374

  Cleveland

  79

  123

  205

  221

  Cumbria

  211

  243

  199

  161

  Derbyshire

  167

  204

  248

  206

  Devon and Cornwall

  492

  587

  517

  479

  Dorset

  105

  222

  286

  281

  Durham

  97

  102

  100

  212

  Essex

  465

  538

  559

  567

  Gloucestershire

  143

  191

  201

  172

  Greater Manchester

  594

  728

  808

  895

  Hampshire

  530

  770

  917

  738

  Hertfordshire

  253

  228

  236

  233

  Humberside

  146

  213

  226

  232

  Kent

  542

  873

  873

  720

  Lancashire

  657

  885

  814

  716

  Leicestershire

  244

  308

  245

  226

  Lincolnshire

  292

  317

  171

  162

  London, City of

  67

  89

  70

  23

  Merseyside

  999

  1,312

  1,246

  941

  Metropolitan police

  3,743

  5,100

  4,974

  4,550

  Norfolk

  318

  170

  261

  237

  Northamptonshire

  12

  11

  31

  102

  Northumbria

  314

  655

  879

  925

  North Yorkshire

  230

  371

  337

  158

  Nottinghamshire

  244

  236

  266

  260

  South Yorkshire

  416

  474

  577

  617

  Staffordshire1

  249

  289

  221

  n/a

  Suffolk

  230

  239

  234

  166

  Surrey

  208

  250

  314

  358

  Sussex

  317

  330

  296

  272

  Thames Valley

  550

  683

  642

  558

  Warwickshire

  67

  76

  74

  74

  West Mercia

  261

  314

  286

  218

  West Midlands

  785

  1,212

  1,114

  1,213

  West Yorkshire

  940

  1,153

  1,011

  856

  Wiltshire

  125

  169

  203

  169

  Dyfed Powys

  302

  499

  476

  368

  Gwent

  178

  262

  278

  337

  North Wales

  222

  357

  355

  292

  South Wales

  585

  712

  681

  692

  England and Wales

  17,275

  22,643

  22,623

  20,725

  n/a =not available

  1Estimates made for Staffordshire police force, who were able to submit data for only a sample of weeks for year 2000, have been included only in the total.

  Note:

  All data are given on a principal offence basis.
  83W
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect on the(a) quantity of cannabis consumed in the UK, (b) quantity of tobacco consumed in the UK and (c) number of people in the UK using cannabis that would result from the reclassification of cannabis from a Class B to Class C drug. [11589]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I do not anticipate that a decision to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would have any effect on the number of people using the drug or the quantity consumed. Cannabis will remain a controlled drug and using it still a criminal offence.

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reviews of sex offences are in progress in his Department; and when their conclusions will be reported to the House. [11873]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government set up a Sex Offences Review in January 1999. Its recommendations on reforming the law on sex offences were published in 'Setting the Boundaries' in July 2000. We are now considering the recommendations in the light of the over 700 responses to that consultation document. We hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.

  In addition responses to consultation on a review of Part One of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (the register of sex offenders) are currently being analysed.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information will be stored on the asylum seekers' identification smart card. [12055]

  Angela Eagle
  The Application Registration Card or 'ARC' will have a microchip which could enable it to support financial transactions in due course. In addition, it is currently envisaged that the following data will be stored within the microchip:Printed on card

  Name

  Date of Birth

  Sex

  Nationality

  IFB ref no

  Place of original issue

  Date of original issue

  Card Issue No

  Date of application

  Number of dependants

  Dependant of

  Language 1

  Language 2

  84W
  Contained in microchip

  Name

  Address

  IFB ref no

  Home Office ref no

  Port/LEO reference

  NASS ref no

  Originating Port/LEO code

  Date of Birth

  Sex

  Nationality Code

  Case Type

  Asylum/Non-asylum

  Place of original issue

  Date of original issue

  Next report date

  Case Status

  Card Issue No

  Card Serial No

  Face image

  Fingerprints

  Issuing Officer

  Fingerprint used

  Date of application

  Number of dependants

  Dependant of

  Language 1

  Language 2.

  However, these lists are still subject to change. Card design will not be confirmed until 9 November.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum claims by(a) families, (b) unaccompanied minors and (c) all persons were rejected on the grounds of non-compliance (i) as an initial decision and (ii) as a final decision, as a percentage of all decisions, for each of the last six months. [10749]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information on initial decisions made on asylum claims made by (a) principal applicants and (b) families are included in the table. Decision data for unaccompanied minors are unavailable.

  Initial decisions made1,2,3 and refusals on non-compliance grounds of asylum and exceptional leave, principal applicants, February 2001-July 20014

  Initial decisions made

  Refused on non- compliance grounds

  Percentage of total decisions

  February 2001

  14,430

  3,460

  24

  March 2001

  18,895

  3,110

  16

  April 2001

  9,455

  1,415

  15

  May 2001

  9,645

  1,625

  17

  June 2001

  8,205

  1,400

  17

  July 2001

  7,600

  1,285

  17

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

  2Information is of initial decision excluding the outcome of appeals of other subsequent decisions.

  3May include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  4Provisional.

  85W

  Initial decisions made1,2,3 and refusals on non-compliance grounds of asylum and exceptional leave, families, February 2001-July 20014

  Initial decisions made

  Refused on non- compliance grounds

  Percentage of total decisions

  February 2001

  780

  170

  22

  March 2001

  1,165

  205

  18

  April 2001

  705

  165

  24

  May 2001

  750

  175

  23

  June 2001

  655

  100

  15

  July 2001

  590

  70

  12

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

  2Information is of initial decision excluding the outcome of appeals of other subsequent decisions.

  3May include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  4Provisional.

  Refusals1,2,3 of asylum and exceptional leave, excluding dependants, by nationality, February 2001-July 20014

  Europe

  Total decisions

  Total refused

  Percentage of total decisions

  Refused on non-compliance grounds

  Percentage of total decisions

  Percentage of total refusals

  Albania

  975

  885

  91

  245

  25

  28

  Czech Republic

  595

  595

  100

  60

  10

  10

  FRY

  6,035

  4,805

  80

  1,110

  18

  23

  Poland

  455

  445

  98

  95

  21

  21

  Romania

  1,300

  1,265

  97

  760

  58

  60

  Russia

  525

  495

  94

  120

  23

  24

  Turkey

  4,495

  4,265

  95

  445

  10

  10

  Ukraine

  705

  685

  97

  165

  23

  24

  Other former USSR

  1,650

  1,560

  95

  545

  33

  35

  Other former Yugo.

  525

  480

  91

  100

  19

  21

  Others

  485

  440

  91

  65

  13

  15

  Total

  17,745

  15,910

  90

  3,710

  21

  23

  Americas

  Colombia

  420

  375

  89

  65

  15

  17

  Ecuador

  345

  330

  96

  65

  19

  20

  Others

  400

  370

  93

  90

  23

  24

  Total

  1,165

  1,080

  93

  220

  19

  20

  Middle East

  Iran

  3,360

  2,900

  86

  545

  16

  19

  Iraq

  4,735

  3,520

  74

  745

  16

  21

  Others

  1,110

  940

  85

  140

  13

  15

  Total

  9,200

  7,360

  80

  1,430

  16

  19

  Africa

  Algeria

  1,670

  1,585

  95

  345

  21

  22

  Angola

  695

  380

  55

  95

  14

  25

  Dem Rep of Congo

  1,455

  1,115

  77

  125

  9

  11

  Ethiopia

  650

  515

  79

  40

  6

  8

  Gambia

  45

  35

  78

  10

  22

  29

  Ghana

  230

  180

  78

  55

  24

  31

  Ivory Coast

  305

  285

  93

  50

  16

  18

  Kenya

  540

  490

  91

  105

  19

  21

  Nigeria

  640

  555

  87

  210

  33

  38

  Rwanda

  585

  300

  51

  120

  21

  40

  Sierra Leone

  1,425

  365

  26

  210

  15

  58

  Somalia

  4,180

  1,505

  36

  745

  18

  50

  Sudan

  465

  370

  80

  40

  9

  11

  Tanzania

  75

  65

  87

  10

  13

  15

  Uganda

  640

  570

  89

  70

  11

  12

  Zimbabwe

  945

  885

  94

  85

  9

  10

  Others

  3,710

  3,020

  81

  480

  13

  16

  Total

  17,305

  11,330

  65

  2,720

  16

  24

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  7,175

  1,470

  20

  795

  11

  54

  Bangladesh

  555

  535

  96

  165

  30

  31

  China

  2,340

  2,255

  96

  595

  25

  26

  86W
  Information on final decisions are not readily available and would only be obtained by examination of individual case files relating to the outcomes of initial decisions, appeals and reconsiderations, which would incur disproportionate cost.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the percentage of applications for asylum refused on non-compliance grounds at the initial decision stage by country of origin in the last six months. [10724]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested has been provided in the table.
  87W

  Refusals1,2,3 of asylum and exceptional leave, excluding dependants, by nationality, February 2001-July 20014

  Europe

  Total decisions

  Total refused

  Percentage of total decisions

  Refused on non-compliance grounds

  Percentage of total decisions

  Percentage of total refusals

  India

  1,775

  1,740

  98

  790

  45

  45

  Pakistan

  2,420

  2,260

  93

  800

  33

  35

  Sri Lanka

  6,375

  5,215

  82

  485

  8

  9

  Others

  1,340

  1,240

  93

  445

  33

  36

  Total

  21,980

  14,710

  67

  4,070

  19

  28

  Other and unknown nationalities

  825

  635

  77

  140

  17

  22

  Grand total

  68,230

  51,030

  75

  12,285

  18

  24

  1Figures (other than percentages) rounded to nearest five.

  2Information is of initial decision excluding the outcome of appeals of other subsequent decisions.

  3May include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  4Provisional

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purpose asylum seekers will be required to present their application registration cards. [11744]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Asylum seekers will not be required to present Application Registration Cards (ARCs) other than for immigration and asylum purposes. They are being introduced to help them identify themselves in order to access Asylum Support services. The current standard acknowledgement letter (SAL) is too open to forgery and counterfeiting.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether employers will be required to check the Application Registration Card of employees they believe to be asylum seekers. [11745]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Employers are not currently required to check an asylum seeker's standard acknowledgement letter (SAL) but they must ensure that any person they are proposing to employ has permission to work in this country. Employers who fail to carry out such checks may be committing an offence under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.

  The Application Registration Card will be issued to all new asylum seekers. It is not envisaged that it will in itself confer permission to work and a statement to that effect will be on the reverse of the card. Other evidence will have to he provided for employers to check eligibility for employment. However, the card will help the holder to establish his/her identity.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money per(a) individual and (b) family was allocated to Barnsley metropolitan district council in respect of (i) council housing for asylum seekers and (ii) financial support for asylum seekers in the last 12 months. [10947]

  Angela Eagle
  In the year from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 Barnsley metropolitan district council received £629,478.62 in grant for supporting asylum seekers, including unaccompanied asylum seeking children. This was based on unit costs of(a) £140 per week per single person and (b) £240 per week for a family. This amount is inclusive of (i) housing and (ii) other support.
  88W
  Barnsley is a member of the Yorkshire and Humberside consortium and provides housing under contract to National Asylum Support Service but it is not possible to identify the amounts directly attributable to Barnsley.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in Barnsley metropolitan borough council are funded by the Government. [10942]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information comes from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) which supports asylum seekers who applied for asylum on or after the 3 April 2000. Information is not available centrally on the number of asylum seekers in Barnsley who are funded by the Government under the Interim Support Scheme.

  Statistics from NASS, for the end of July 2001, show that 1601,2asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in NASS accommodation in Barnsley.

  A further 1501,2, asylum seekers (including dependants) were receiving voucher only support from NASS in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which includes Barnsley.

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  2Cases which have had their support ceased are excluded from these figures.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) asylum seekers, and (b) others applying under immigration law whose cases and appeals have failed (i) left the UK voluntarily and (ii) remained in the UK; if he is aware of their whereabouts; and if he will make a statement. [9442]

  Angela Eagle
  550 persons left the United Kingdom under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme in 2000. It is not possible to say how many other persons voluntarily left the United Kingdom without the knowledge of the Home Office, or left voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated.

  Comprehensive information on the number and location of persons who remain in the UK after having exhausted their rights of appeal is not available.
  89W

  Prison High Security Estate
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the £70 million allocated for new places in the prison high security estate announced in September 2000 has been spent. [10588]

  Beverley Hughes
  The £70 million allocated for new places in the Prison Service High Security estate announced in September 2000 provides funding for the development of new services for those who are dangerous and severely personality disordered (DSPD) over three years. It includes resources for capital costs, for the construction of new units, running costs and support for the development of new approaches to assessment and treatment. These are complex schemes involving major innovation both in design and in the approach to service delivery.

  The initial capital allocation in 2001–02 was £9 million to fund three refurbished units at Whitemoor Prison (and replacement of prison places lost as a result) and the beginning of construction of a new build unit at Frankland Prison. The work at Whitemoor Prison is complete and has incurred a total capital cost of £230,000 together with £4.27 million allocated to the Prison Service for replacement of lost prison places.

  Work at Frankland Prison has been slightly delayed by adverse ground conditions but is projected to incur capital costs of £1 million this year to open on schedule in 2003. In 2001–02, £11 million was allocated for running costs and service development work. This was necessarily a rough projection of likely costs because of the ground breaking nature of this work. At this stage we project spending of £5.2 million (with £766,584 spent to date). Any underspend is being reallocated to other key Home Office priorities.

  Overstayers
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the processing of applications for indefinite leave to remain in the UK made under the regularisation of overstayers scheme; and when he expects it to be completed. [10558]

  Angela Eagle
  Resources have been invested in the current financial year to identify and process those cases where leave to remain can be granted under existing policy concessions. A dedicated unit within Immigration Casework Directorate (ICD) North has now been trained, and has already sifted and taken action on 600 applications. During the next financial year (2002–03) more caseworkers and resources will be devoted to the consideration of the remaining cases. The target date for the completion of all considerations is April 2003.

  Charity Commissioners
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received by the Charity Commissioners and from how many complainants; how many have been fully or partially upheld; how many complaints relating to the Charity Commission have been received by the independent complaints reviewer and from how many 90W
  complainants; how many have been fully or partially upheld; and if the present pilot complaints procedures are to continue. [10963]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission, who will write to the hon. Member. A copy of the Commission's reply will be placed in the Library.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Records Bureau will be launched; and if he will make a statement. [11752]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 449W.

  Criminal Justice System Reserve
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the Criminal Justice System Reserve has been(a) allocated and (b) spent to date; and if he will make a statement about his plans to allocate the reserve in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [11754]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Of the £100 million Criminal Justice System Reserve in 2001–02, £85 million has been allocated to date. Information on spend to date on approved initiatives indicates that full allocations will be spent. In addition £13.75 million has been allocated from the Reserve to approved initiatives in 2002–03 and up to £53.1 million in 2003–04.

  Allocations from the Criminal Justice System Reserve require the joint agreement of the Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General prior to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury releasing the money from the Reserve. Bidding guidance for the Criminal Justice System Reserve for 2001–02 and 2002–03 was issued to the three Criminal Justice System Departments in July 2001. Ministers will shortly be recommending to the Chief Secretary further allocations for 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Drug Testing
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimation he has made of the pilot projects on drug testing for detainees in(a) Staffordshire, (b) Hackney and (c) Nottingham. [11586]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Piloting of the provisions for drug testing persons in police detention after charge, introduced under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, began in Staffordshire on 30 July and in Hackney and Nottingham on 17 September. An interim evaluation report is due in spring 2002, with a further interim report in spring 2003 and a final full evaluation report in early 2004.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the fax from the hon. Member for Poole of 11 September on Leonilla Beck (Ref 16407/1). [10298]
  91W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member for Poole on 24 October.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the charitable status of independent schools. [11456]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The advancement of education is the second of the four main heads of charity and any not-for-profit body that operates an independent school will normally be charitable under this head. The issue of charitable status is being more broadly considered by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit as part of its review of the legal and regulatory framework for voluntary organisations. The review will cover the scope and definition of charity, although it does not have the aim of removing charitable status from any particular type of organisation. The report of the review is due in early 2002.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will abolish the charitable status for independent schools. [9594]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans to remove charitable status from independent schools. The issue of charitable status is being more broadly considered by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit as part of its review of the legal and regulatory framework for voluntary organisations. The review will cover the scope and definition of charity, although it does not have the aim of removing charitable status from any particular type of organisation such as independent schools. The report of the review is due in early 2002.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received by NASS in respect of sub-standard accommodation provided for asylum seekers since April 2000; and if he will make a statement. [11370]

  Angela Eagle
  Since April 2000 the housing management team of National Asylum Support Service has received 347 complaints about sub-standard accommodation. These complaints relate to both housing conditions and management. The complaints are from a range of sources including asylum seekers themselves or their legal representatives as well as voluntary and public sector organisations acting on their behalf.

  All complaints received by the housing management team are registered, investigated and monitored. The team liaises as necessary with other agencies such as local authorities and refugee organisations in dealing with complaints.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many part 8 reviews have been carried out by the Metropolitan police on incidents of domestic violence since the inception of the system. [11205]
  92W
  Mr. Denham
  When a child dies, and abuse or neglect are known or suspected to be a factor in the death, local agencies should consider whether there are lessons to be learned from the tragedy about the ways in which they work together to safeguard children. Consequently, when a child dies in such circumstances, the area child protection committee should always conduct a review into the involvement with the child and family of agencies and professionals.

  Additionally, the area child protection committee should always consider whether to undertake a serious case review where a child has sustained a potentially life-threatening injury through abuse or neglect, serious sexual abuse, or sustained serious and permanent impairment of health or development through abuse or neglect, and the case gives rise to concerns about the way in which local professionals and services work together to safeguard children.

  The Metropolitan police service does not carry out serious case reviews themselves, but like any other agency, they may be asked to undertake a management review off its involvement with a child and family as part of the case review process.

  The conduct of such reviews is the responsibility of the area child protection committee for the area in which the child, who is the subject of the review, was normally resident.

  In five serious case reviews to which the Metropolitan police service has contributed, a history of domestic violence between the carers prior to the death of a child has been identified.

  Extradition
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people accused of capital crimes have been extradited to the USA since 11 May 1997; and under what arrangements. [11402]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The availability of the death penalty has been an issue in only one of 34 surrenders to the United States since 1997. In that case, the fugitive was surrendered following an assurance from the United States authorities that the death penalty would neither be sought nor applied. That is consistent with the UK/US Extradition Treaty (United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976 as amended by the United States of America (Extradition) (Amendment) Order 1986) which provides that extradition may be refused unless the requesting party gives satisfactory assurances that the death penalty will not be carried out.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are applied when deciding whether an unsuccessful applicant for political asylum should be granted exceptional leave to remain; and how many people have been granted such exceptional leave since June 1997. [12455]

  Angela Eagle
  Exceptional leave is a discretionary grant of limited leave made by the Home Secretary. Every case is considered on its own individual merits and
  93W
  exceptional leave is normally granted only after an asylum application has been substantively considered and it has been decided to refuse the application.

  Exceptional leave may be granted for a wide number of reasons but is mainly granted for compassionate or humanitarian reasons or where there is a specific government policy or concession. Exceptional leave is also granted where removal from the United Kingdom would breach our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

  Exceptional leave is granted for limited periods, normally up to four years. After four years, an applicant may apply for settlement in the United Kingdom.

  Our current statistical records run from June 1997 to July 2001. During this period, 46,215 people were granted exceptional leave, of which 14,110 were granted under the post July 1993 backlog clearance measures.

  Proceedings at magistrates courts for serious motoring offences1 and speeding by offence group within Essex police force area, 1994–99

  Number of offences

  Offence group/type

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Serious motoring offences1

  1—Causing death or bodily harm

  13

  8

  16

  30

  15

  9

  2—Dangerous driving

  264

  252

  291

  274

  293

  240

  6—Unauthorised taking or theft of motor vehicle

  1,123

  811

  1,061

  957

  954

  1,108

  14—Fraud, forgery etc. associated with vehicle or driver records

  689

  541

  405

  511

  427

  373

  Total

  2,089

  1,612

  1,773

  1,772

  1,689

  1,730

  Speeding

  16—Speed limit offences

  8,130

  6,354

  6,528

  5,457

  5,132

  7,019

  1Serious motoring offences' includes those motoring offences which are indictable only or triable either way.

  Joint Enterprise Charges
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to propose amendments to the law in respect of serious charges involving joint enterprise. [12587]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are no plans to change the Law on Joint Enterprise at present. However, the Law Commission is conducting a major review of the whole area of inchoate offences and secondary liability, which will include this area.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the(a) size and (b) caseload of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and its predecessor bodies in each year since 1997. [12649]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) establishment in April (except where specified) each year since 1997 has been:

  1997: 637

  1998: 637

  1999: 683 (June)

  2000: 787

  2001: 900 (August).

  94W
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of applications for political asylum came from people who have already been living in the United Kingdom for at least six months. [12456]

  Angela Eagle
  The requested information is unavailable because data on applicants' dates of entry to the United Kingdom are not currently collected. The majority of applicants apply for asylum in-country rather than at ports.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in the county of Essex for(a) serious motoring offences and (b) speeding by motor vehicles in (i) each full year since 1994 and (ii) the nine months to September 2001. [12007]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Available information is given in the table. Data for 2000 will be available later this year. 2001 data will be available in the autumn 2002.

  (b) The National Criminal Intelligence Service does not have an operational caseload. NCIS provides strategic intelligence; maintains intelligence reports on serious criminals for all law enforcement agencies; co-ordinates the activity of law enforcement agencies; conducts some intelligence investigations on behalf of law enforcement agencies; provides specialist advice and a range of other support functions. There is no single case record system.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 3 October 2001 to the hon. Member for Crosby (refs. 9417, 9418 and 9419), when he will provide a substantive reply. [12547]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 2 November 2001,Official Report, column 853W.

  Young Offenders (Education)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours per week on average have been spent on education courses by those serving custodial sentences of compulsory school age in each year since 1995. [11632]
  95W
  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available. Data on prison education participation do not distinguish between those of, and those above, compulsory school age. Prison Service Order 4950 states that education must be provided to all young offenders under school-leaving age for at least 15 hours per week.

  Prisoners (Depression)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners were identified as suffering from clinical depression at the latest date for which figures are available. [11626]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not available in precisely the form requested. A survey of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales, was undertaken by the Office for National Statistics in 1997. Some 56 per cent. of remanded men and 64 per cent. of remanded women reported to a lay interviewer, applying a recognised tool for diagnosing neurotic symptoms and depression, that they had experienced certain recognised symptoms of depression for more than two weeks prior to interview. The comparable figures for sentenced men and women were 33 per cent. and 51 per cent. respectively.

  Prison Education
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prison inmates were assessed as having literacy and numeracy skills below level 2 at the latest date for which figures are available. [11625]

  Beverley Hughes
  Figures for September 2001 show that of those prisoners tested on induction, 71 per cent. and 65 per cent. respectively were assessed as having literacy and numeracy skills below level 2.

  The Prison Service has in place targets for 23,400 prisoners to achieve national qualifications in 2001–2002 rising to 36.000 in 2003–2004. This includes a planned increase in the number of Level 2 basic skills awards to 21,000 over the period. In addition, targets have been agreed for the current year with the Adult Basic Skill Strategy for qualifications below Level 2 in Basic Skills: 7,500 qualifications at Entry Level and 7,500 qualifications at Level 1.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to(a) collect and (b) publish data on the average time spent in prison education classes by prisoners in private sector prisons. [11633]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service collects data on the average time spent on purposeful activity, including education, in all prisons including those run by the private sector. National statistics are published in the annual "Prison Statistics, England and Wales". Figures for different categories of prison are not published separately. I will write to my hon. Friend about education in private sector prisons.

  Prisoners (Special Educational Needs)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the number of prisoners in each of Her Majesty's prisons with special educational needs. [11631]
  96W
  Beverley Hughes
  No reliable information is available on the total number of prisoners with special education needs. The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit located in the Department for Education and Skills is implementing new procedures to collect this kind of information.

  Young Offenders (Penalties)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consultations he has had regarding reducing penalties in youth courts for(a) criminal damage (b) shoplifting and (c) offences involving airguns. [12585]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  None. We have not reduced the penalties or propose doing so.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the tariff of penalties in youth courts for criminal damage offences. [12586]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Sentencers in the youth court have discretion within the statutory framework laid down by Parliament. The maximum penalty for criminal damage above £5,000 is a two-year Detention and Training Order. Below that a range of non-custodial orders is available. These were enhanced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Penalty Downgrading
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Judicial Studies Board with regard to downgrading penalties issued by magistrates for low seriousness offences. [12584]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There have been no discussions between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Judicial Studies Board regarding the downgrading of penalties issued by magistrates for low seriousness offences. However, Lord Justice Auld's Report 'Review of the Criminal Courts of England And Wales' recommended that there should be a systematic review leading to fixed penalty and/or notice-to-correct schemes for a wider range of infringements than are presently the subject of criminal prosecution. Lord Justice Auld's report is currently out to a public consultation. Officials in the relevant departments are also considering these recommendations. An assessment of the feasibility of taking them forward will be made after a full consultation.

HEALTH

  Heart Transplants
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will take into account the implications of the Bristol inquiry report before making further decisions on the national specialist commissionary advisory group report; [6764]

  (2) what the terms of reference were of the national specialist commissionary advisory group report into the future of heart transplant units; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [6763]
  97W
  Mr. Hutton
  We have published our intention to keep all six cardiothoracic transplant centres open in the discussion document "National Adult Heart and Lung Transplant Service" published on 21 September. We will receive comments on these proposals until 7 December.

  The report by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory group was an internal Department of Health paper. However reference to the paper is included in discussion document the "National Adult Heart and Lung Transplant service".

  We are still considering our response to the Bristol Inquiry Report.

  Small Birthing Units
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will allocate funds to increase the number of small birthing units, led by midwives in hospitals without a maternity unit; and if he will make a statement. [7097]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Health Service provides a variety of types of care for women during pregnancy and childbirth including care in midwife-led births units. We expect this variety to continue and do not support any one single model of maternity service provision in preference to all others. It is for health authorities and NHS trusts to decide on the pattern of service provision taking into account the needs of local service users, evidence of effectiveness and available resources.

  Community Equipment Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what system is used to allocate budgets for community equipment services to local NHS trusts and social services departments. [R] [8718]

  Jacqui Smith
  National Health Service and social services community equipment services have their funding determined locally. Additional funding being made available to enable them to meet the NHS Plan targets is allocated through health authority allocations and local council personal social services spending assessments.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts and social services departments that have received funds from the community equipment services budget this financial year. [R] [8720]

  Jacqui Smith
  In addition to pre-existing levels of funding for community equipment services by health and social services, all National Health Service health authorities received additional funding for community equipment services in their general allocations in 2001–02. Where authorities have identified that additional funding is required, they will have allocated it to the appropriate organisation running the equipment service which may be an NHS trust, a primary care group or a social services department. Similarly, all local councils with personal social services received allocations from which they are expected to contribute not just previous funding but an increased amount towards achieving the community equipment services targets in the NHS Plan.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the national budget is for community equipment services for the 2001–02 financial year. [R] [8719]
  98W
  Jacqui Smith
  £12 million has been allocated nationally to support the National Health Service to work towards achieving the NHS Plan targets in relation to community equipment services. We also took account of the need for additional investment in the personal social services settlement for 2001–02 to 2003–04 to enable councils to contribute an appropriate share to the expansion of these services. These amounts are in addition to pre-existing local funding for equipment services.

  Dentists
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what levels of investment have been made and what initiatives have been taken to promote access to NHS dentists in Shropshire since 1997. [9257]

  Ms Blears
  In 2000–01 dentists within Shropshire health authority received £9.66 million for providing general dental services.

  Shropshire health authority also received £414,000 in 2000–01 to develop a dental access centre (DAC) and £80,000 from the Dental Care Development Fund to promote access to NHS dentistry. The DAC now operates from Shrewsbury, Donnington, Oswestry and Market Drayton and two further sites opening shortly in Ludlow and Craven Arms.

  In addition £409,000 has been awarded for 11 "Investing in Dentistry" approvals leading so far to 24,800 additional patient registrations.

  The connection between NHS Direct and NHS dentistry is now up and running and all callers to NHS Direct should now be able to get information about where they can find an NHS dentist.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment is planned to promote access to NHS dentistry in Shropshire. [9256]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the investment planned to promote access to National Health Service dentistry in Shropshire for 2001–02.

  £

  Local personal dental service funds:

  50,000

  Modernisation fund:

  207,000

  Dental care development fund:

  50,000

  Quality assurance (to implement clinical governance)

  17,000

  In addition, the anticipated spend on the Shropshire Dental Access Centre in 2001–02 is £656,000 revenue and £33,000 capital. The exact level of expenditure may vary depending on the opening date of the two new sites, in Ludlow and Craven Arms, and the numbers of patients needed in year.

  Following changes in Regulations it is now possible for health authorities to use their own resources to respond to local patterns of unmet demand for NHS dentistry identified in their dentistry action plans.

  Social Services Departments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the methodology used to calculate the top
  99W
  and bottom 14 social services departments as set out in the publication of Social Services Performance Assessment Framework Indicators 2000–01 on 19 October. [10500]

  Jacqui Smith
  The methodology used to rank social services departments was as follows:

  A council was classified as one of the best performing if:
  it was in the top one third of councils based on the proportion of indicators banded three or higher this year; and
  had on average three quarters or more of its indicators banded as three or higher over the past three years.

  There were 15 councils in this category.

  A council was classified as one of the least well performing if:
  it was in the bottom third of councils based on the proportion of indicators banded three or higher this year; and
  had on average 55 per cent. or less of its indicators banded as three or higher over the past three years.

  Trust

  Project description

  Date full business case approval given

  Date financial close reached

  Bay Community NHS Trust

  New Mentally Ill Unit

  25 September 1998

  30 September 1998

  Birmingham Specialist Community Health NHS Trust

  Reprovision of accommodation for people with learning disabilities

  12 February 1999

  17 May 1999

  Black Country Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mental Health Unit

  6 October 1998

  8 October 1998

  Bradford Community Health NHS Trust

  Horton Park Centre—range of primary and community services including medical centres for GP practices, rehabilitation centre and Mental Health resource centre

  26 November 1998

  15 March 1999

  Central Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust

  Learning disability/Mental Health team base

  30 March 2000

  15 May 2000

  Doncaster and South Humber NHS Trust

  Elderly Mental Health Services and Mental Health Rehabilitation Services

  14 September 2001

  17 September 2001

  East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mental Health reprovision

  10 August 2000

  30 July 2000

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  Elderly/Mentally Ill home

  7 May 2000

  9 May 2000

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS Trust

  Reprovision of Mental Health Services, High Royds

  28 February 2000

  24 January 2001

  Local Health Partnerships NHS Trust

  Mental health unit

  15 August 2000

  24 January 2001

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust

  Reprovision of Mental Health facilities

  29 November 1999

  8 December 1999

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust

  Reprovision of Mental Health facilities

  9 August 2000

  10 August 2000

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mental Health Medium Secure Unit

  1 June 1998

  1 June 1998

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  Reprovision of Mental Health

  4 December 1998

  11 December 1998

  Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

  Mental Health Reprovision and Geriatric Day Centre

  27 June 2000

  4 July 2000

  Rotherham Priority Health Service NHS Trust

  Elderly Mental Health

  19 March 1997

  15 May 1998

  Stockport NHS Trust

  New Mentally Ill Unit

  18 September 1998

  10 October 1999

  Thames Gateway NHS Trust

  Acute Psychiatric—Stonehouse Hospital

  14 December 1998

  14 December 1998

  West Berkshire Priority Care Services NHS Trust

  Prospect Park mental health redevelopment

  1 February 2001

  2 May 2001

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the occupancy rate of NHS mental health beds, excluding day only, is in each London hospital. [10531]

  NHS Trust1

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Occupancy rate (Percentage)

  2000–01

  Barnet Community Health Care

  207

  187

  90.5

  BHB Community Health

  245

  223

  91.3

  Brent, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health

  732

  621

  84.8

  Camden and Islington Community Health Service

  358

  352

  98.2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health

  567

  543

  95.8

  East London and the City Mental Health

  514

  480

  93.4

  100W
  There were 14 councils in this category.

  Banding of the performance indicators was introduced last year to help clarify what level of performance is generally good in relation to a performance indicator. Bands range from "investigate urgently" to "very good". Band three represents a council performing at a level which is "acceptable but with possible room for improvement".

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what private finance initiative projects in mental health services have(a) been given approval and (b) had contracts signed since 1 May 1997. [10529]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of private finance initiative projects in mental health services which have been given approval and had contracts signed since I May 1997.

  Jacqui Smith
  The latest data available are for 2000–01 and are shown in the table.

  The data are collected annually at national health service trust level, rather than by individual hospital site.
  101W

  NHS Trust1

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Occupancy rate(Percentage)

  Enfield Community Care

  262

  244

  93.1

  Forest Healthcare

  213

  190

  89.0

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children

  8

  6

  77.1

  Hammersmith Hospitals

  72

  65

  90.4

  Haringey Healthcare

  240

  235

  98.1

  Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare

  83

  81

  97.7

  Hillingdon Hospital

  116

  109

  93.9

  Hounslow and Spelthome Community and Mental Health

  164

  162

  98.8

  Kingston and District Community

  308

  289

  94.0

  Oxleas and District Community

  391

  354

  90.7

  Redbridge Healthcare

  245

  203

  83.2

  Royal Free Hampstead

  122

  114

  93.4

  South London and Maudsley

  947

  916

  96.7

  South West London and St George's Mental Health

  595

  541

  90.9

  University College of London

  13

  10

  75.2

  1 Pre April 2001 Trust Configurations

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking(a) to promote mental health and (b) to encourage people to seek help at an early stage, among those from an ethnic minority background. [10523]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have asked local health and social services to ensure that by March 2002, as required by Standard One of the National Service Framework for Mental Health, they develop and agree an evidence-based mental health promotion strategy based on an assessment of local needs which incorporates action to reduce discrimination. In August 2001, the Department issued to local services "Making it Happen: a guide to delivering mental health promotion". The document recognises the need to promote mental health for ethnic minority groups and it includes examples of good practice including working with Asian communities and assessing the needs of refugee children.

  The mental health taskforce is preparing a draft strategy, which we expect will be launched for consultation in spring 2002, to promote more accessible and appropriate services for people from black and ethnic minorities.

  The Department also plans to commission the development of a toolkit to support mental health services in promoting mental health for people from ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health carer support workers have been recruited in accordance with the NHS Plan. [10525]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan set a target for 2004 that 700 more staff will be recruited to increase the breaks available for carers and to strengthen carer support networks. In pursuance of this target, all regular carers of people with mental health problems will have been identified, received an assessment and have their own care support plans by April 2004. By June 2004, local support networks for these carers will have been developed. The statutory and voluntary sector currently provide support to carers, and the Department is currently developing a service specification for carers support services against which we will measure progress.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of levels of major depression and self-harm in children; and if he will make a statement on recent trends. [10517]
  102W
  Jacqui Smith
  In August this year the Office for National Statistics reported on the prevalence rates of self-harm (defined for the purposes of the report as any attempt to harm, hurt or kill themselves) among children and adolescents aged five to 15 in England, Scotland and Wales during the first half of 1999. The report represents a secondary analysis of data originally collected for the national survey of the mental health of young people published in March 2000.

  The main findings were that, according to parents, approximately 1.3 per cent. of the sampled five to 10-year-olds had ever tried to harm, hurt or kill themselves. The rate of self-harm among those with no mental disorder was 0.8 per cent. but the rate increased significantly to 6.2 per cent. among young children with an anxiety disorder and 7.5 per cent. for those with conduct/hyperkinetic disorder. However there was no recorded link with depressive disorder in this age group.

  According to parents, approximately 2.1 per cent. of the sample of 11 to 15-year-olds had ever tried to harm, hurt or kill themselves. The rate of self-harm among 11 to 15-year-olds with no mental disorder was 1.2 per cent. but the rate rose markedly to 9.4 per cent. of those with anxiety disorders, 12.6 per cent. of those with a conduct disorder and 18.8 per cent. of young people with depression.

  As was the case with younger children, the prevalence of self-harm among 11 to 15-year-olds was influenced by factors relating to family constitution, exposure to discord and frequency of punishment, and, most significantly, the number of stressful life events.

  At present there is no firm information on trends but it is believed that the prevalence of mental health problems among children and young people has increased over recent decades, both in this country and in the rest of western Europe.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the prevalence of mental illness is in children; and if he will make a statement setting out his assessment of recent trends. [10515]

  Jacqui Smith
  A survey of the mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain was carried out in 1999 by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the Department, the Scottish Health Executive and
  103W
  the National Assembly for Wales. The intention was to provide up-to-date baseline information on the prevalence of mental disorders among five to 15-year-olds. Prevalence rates were produced for the three main categories of mental disorder, for example, conduct disorders, hyperactivity and emotional disorders.

  Key findings on prevalence were about 10 per cent. of children aged five to 15 in Great Britain had a mental disorder in 1999, 5 per cent. had conduct disorders (e.g. aggressive and antisocial behaviour), 4 per cent. had emotional disorders (e.g. anxiety, depression) and 1 per cent. were hyperkinetic (inattention, over-activity); and mental disorders were significantly more common in boys than girls in both the five to 10 and the 11 to 15-year-old age groups.

  At present there is no firm information on trends, but it is believed that the prevalence of mental ill-health among children and young people has increased over recent decades, both in this country and in the rest of western Europe. It is the intention to repeat the original survey in approximately five years in order to detect any changes in prevalence over time.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued in 2000–01 for medicines used to treat mental illness. [10513]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for the treatment of mental illness during the financial year ending 31 March 2001 is given in the table.

  Information about the diagnosis for which the drugs were prescribed is not available. Drugs used to treat mental illness have therefore been defined as those within British National Formulary (BNF) paragraphs hypnotics and anxiolytics (4.1), drugs used in psychoses and related disorders (4.2) and antidepressant drugs (4.3).

  Prescription items dispensed in the community for treatment of mental illness for the year ending 31 March 2001, England

  Prescription items (thousand)

  BNF description

  Number

  4.1 Hypnotics and anxiolytics

  16,561

  4.1.1 Hypnotics

  10,677

  —Benzodiazepine

  7,112

  —Chloral and derivative

  179

  —Other hypnotics

  3,386

  4.1.2 Anxiolytics

  5,826

  —Benzodiazepine

  5,722

  —Other anxiolytics

  104

  4.1.3 Barbiturates

  58

  4.2 Drugs used in psychoses and related disorders

  5,857

  4.2.1 Antipsychotic drugs

  4,920

  4.2.2 Antipsychotic depot injections

  216

  4.2.3 Antimanic drugs

  722

  4.3 Antidepressant drugs

  22,634

  4.3.1 Tricyclic and related antidepressant drugs

  9,722

  —Tricyclic antidepressants

  9,233

  —Related antidepressants

  489

  4.3.2 Monoamine-oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)

  96

  4.3.3 SSRIs

  10,884

  4.3.4 Other antidepressant drugs

  1,932

  Notes:

  1. The therapeutic classifications are based on British National Formulary, Number 40 (September 2000).

  104W

  2. These data are based on items dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis system.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were formally admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01. [10521]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department collects and publishes information annually relating to patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 on: admissions to hospitals under the Act by section of the Act; sex and category of disorder as defined and required under the Act; changes in patient's legal status while in hospital; and patients in hospital at the end of the year, by sex and category of disorder.

  The latest data are published by the Department, in a statistical bulletin "In-patients formally detained in hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation, England: 1989–1990 to 1999–2000". The National. Assembly for Wales published a separate statistical report entitled "Admission of patients to mental health facilities in Wales, 1999–00 (including patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983)". Both publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the proportion of those admitted to psychiatric wards who come from ethnic minority backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [10510]

  Jacqui Smith
  Certain ethnic minorities, especially black ethnic groups, are over-represented in psychiatric care. While there are demographic and socio-economic factors which can partly account for over-representation of black ethnic groups, these cannot explain all of the disparity.

  Due to this disparity and the acknowledgement that mental health services are not fully meeting the needs of ethnic minorities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), when Minister of State with responsibility for community health, asked the mental health taskforce to prepare a strategy to address the issues surrounding black and minority ethnic mental health. A taskforce member, Professor Sashidharan, is taking forward the development of a draft strategy under the guidance of the ethnicity and mental health reference group. We expect consultation papers on the draft strategy to be issued in spring 2002.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the annual number of people with a diagnosis of severe mental illness who are refused treatment when they ask for it. [10526]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our policy is that nobody with severe mental illness who asks for treatment should be refused. The National Service Framework for Mental Health (NSF), published in September 1999, spells out national standards for mental health. The NSF contains seven overarching standards, two of which are specifically about the provision of effective services for people with severe mental illness. The standards aim to ensure that each person with severe mental illness receives the range of mental health services they need
  105W
  In addition, the NHS Plan, published in July 2000, contains a number of commitments relating to the provision of services for people with severe mental illness. These include the establishment of crisis resolution and early intervention teams, and an increase in the number of assertive outreach teams.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places there were in the special hospitals at(a) Ashworth, (b) Broadmoor and (c) Rampton (i) in 1996–97 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [10518]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Contracted places

  1996–97

  October 2001

  Ashworth Hospital

  500

  427

  Broadmoor Hospital

  443

  408

  Rampton Hospital

  448

  430

  Total

  1,391

  1,265

  The reduction in contracted places reflects our policy that patients inappropriately placed in the high security hospitals should be moved to more appropriate accommodation.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ECT treatments were administered in 2000–01. [10516]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available. The most recent information available is contained in a one-off survey covering the period from January 1999 to March 1999, England only, that was undertaken to provide an up to date and accurate snapshot picture of the use of electro-convulsive treatment (ECT). Prior to this survey, the information previously recorded on ECT did not provide an accurate picture on the use of ECT treatment.

  The results of the survey are contained in the Department of Health Statistical bulletin "Electro-convulsive Therapy: Survey covering the period from January 1999 to March 1999. England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The Department is hoping that more useful and reliable information on ECT will be obtained from the mental health minimum data set which is person-centred. It is being implemented across all mental health trusts on a phased basis during 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 but data will not be available until 2003.

  Diabetes
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the original date was for the introduction of the national standard framework for diabetes; what it is now; and if he wilt make a statement. [10447]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Diabetes National Service Framework is due for publication this year. It will be published in two stages—the Diabetes National Service 106W
  Framework Standards this autumn and the Diabetes National Service Framework delivery strategy next summer. This will enable the National Health Service to prepare to plan for implementation from April 2003.

  Head Injury Rehabilitation
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the Health Committee report entitled "Head Injury: Rehabilitation". [10566]

  Jacqui Smith
  The response was laid before Parliament on 24 July. The response is called, "Government Response to the Health Select Committee: Inquiry into Head Injury Rehabilitation, (Command Paper 5226.)" The response is also on the Department's website at "www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/longterm.htm."

  Nurses
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses(a) returned to and (b) left the NHS in (i) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [11118]

  Mr. Hutton
  The work force censuses record the net change in the work force taking account of the number who leave and the number who start work, including newly qualified staff, returners and nurses trained outside the United Kingdom. In 1999 there were 329,640 nurses working in the National Health Service and in 2000 there were 335,950.

  Between 1 October 1999 and 30 September 2000, 3,405 former nurses returned to work in the NHS. Between 1 October 2000 and 30 September, 2001 3,906 former nurses returned to work in the NHS.

  Treatment Abroad
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the arrangements to be in place for NHS patients to travel abroad for their operations when they live outside a pilot site. [11252]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following recent rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) it is clear that National Health Service bodies may commission treatment for NHS patients in other countries in the European Economic Area. However, this does raise a number of clinical, legal and quality issues. Officials are working through these issues with NHS colleagues in three test-bed sites, East Kent, Portsmouth and West Sussex/East Surrey, with the aim, if possible, of sending the first patients overseas for treatment by the end of the year. The Department will publish guidance for the rest of the NHS in England by the end of the year, based on the experience of the test-bed sites.

  The Department also intends to establish through an open tendering process a list of approved foreign providers to assist primary care trusts planning to commission treatment abroad. It will take a number of months to put this in place.

  Patients throughout the United Kingdom can already apply to travel overseas for treatment under the long-standing E112 scheme. This is of course subject to prior authorisation.
  107W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if primary care trusts have the option to secure treatment for NHS patients in other European countries; [11044]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the requirements for funding primary care trusts to support the European Court of Justice ruling of receiving NHS treatment abroad. [11046]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Following recent rulings of the European Court of Justice it is clear that National Health Service bodies, including primary care trusts, may commission treatment for NHS patients in other countries in the European Economic Area (EEA).

  It will be for local commissioners to decide whether or not to contract with health care providers in other EEA countries. Primary care trusts (PCTs) will need to meet the costs out of their budgets.

  This is a new opportunity and freedom for PCTs. There is no requirement for PCTs to make use of this opportunity and it will remain a matter for local commissioners to decide how to use their budgets.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is being made available to support the initiative to reduce waiting lists through the funding of operations for UK citizens in other European countries. [11662]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Following recent rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) it is clear that National Health Service bodies may commission treatment for NHS patients in other countries in the European Economic Area.

  It will be for local commissioners to decide whether or not to contract with health care providers in other EEA countries. Primary care trusts in England will need to meet the costs out of their budgets.

  The decision to commission treatment for patients from Northern Ireland elsewhere in the European Economic Area is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Professor David Southall
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to the NHS of locums to cover the duties of Professor David Southall during his two year suspension. [11248]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department collects information quarterly in regard to the suspension of hospital medical and dental staff and costs incurred, including the cost of locum cover. The most recently available return is for October 2001, and indicates that the North Staffordshire Hospital National Health Service Trust has incurred costs of £284,258 in regard to the suspension of Professor Southall.

  Cancer Referrals
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the guidelines for the referral of patients with suspected cancer for an appointment within two weeks to include patients with atypical symptoms. [11250]
  108W
  Mr. Hutton
  Cancer referral guidelines were issued in March 2000 to help general practitioners identify possible signs and symptoms of cancer and to refer appropriately. For some cancer types, for example, lung cancer and breast cancer atypical symptoms were included on the advice of the members of the relevant tumour working parties who helped to draw up the guidelines. A review of the guidelines will be undertaken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. All National Health Service trusts have been encouraged to work with primary care to audit referrals against the guidelines. The Department will shortly be announcing research projects to help inform decision making and the identification of patients with suspected cancer requiring referral.

  GP Visits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the proportion of the population who regularly visit their general practitioner for each of the last 10 years. [11037]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The information is not collected in the form requested. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes an estimate of the proportion of the population of Great Britain who consult a general practitioner within a 14 day period in their report "Living in Britain—Results from the General Household Survey". The table shows the estimate for each year for which figures are available from 1988.

  Year

  Percentage consulted GP in last 14 days

  1988

  14

  1989

  15

  1990

  16

  1991

  14

  1992

  15

  1993

  17

  1994

  15

  1995

  16

  1996

  16

  1998

  14

  Source:

  ONS "Living in Britain—Results from the General Household Survey"

  The survey was not carried out in 1997 or 1999 and the report for 2000 is expected in December.

  New Hospital (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the new hospital planned for Oldchurch Park, Romford. [11656]

  Mr. Hutton
  Excellent progress has been made on this scheme since its national prioritisation in July 1999. The new hospital is still planned to be complete and operational in autumn 2005.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the safety of genetically modified crops grown for human consumption. [11729]
  109W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that all genetically modified crops approved for human consumption in the European Union following a rigorous safety assessment are considered as safe to eat as their non-modified counterparts.

  Coquetdale Hospital
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects work to start on the Coquetdale Hospital redevelopment at Rothbury, Northumberland; and if he will make a statement. [11675]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: As negotiations on the site for the new Coquetdale Community Hospital at Rothbury are continuing, at this stage we are unable to give a date by which construction work will have commenced.

  Residential Nursing Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 159W, how many residential nursing homes have closed and beds been lost in Great Britain and Northern Ireland since 1 May 1997. [11944]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 23 October 2001, Official Report, columns 159–60W. The figures are for England only. Figures for other parts of the United Kingdom are matters for the devolved Assemblies.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 159-60W, which client groups have been included in the figures provided in written answers N115 and N113 tables 1 and 2. [11946]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The number of residential care homes, residential places in these homes and year on year changes, refer to the adult and older people client groups of: older people; younger physically/sensorily disabled adults; older mentally infirm adults; people with mental illness; people with learning disabilities and alcohol/drug misusers and other people. For residential care homes, information on client groups is based on the principal client group of the homes as defined for registration purposes and not of the client group of the places.

  The number of nursing homes, registered nursing beds and year-on-year changes refers to all those available and includes those intended for children, older people, younger adults and for maternity usage and all of the primary registration categories. For nursing care homes, the allocation of homes and places is based on a combination of primary registration category (general nursing, people with learning disabilities, specialist nursing, maternity, mental health nursing, specialist mental health nursing, general specialities and other) and intended use (children, older person, other person).

  Information by client group is available in the publications "Community Care Statistics 2000: Residential Personal Social Services for adults" and "Community Care Statistics 2000: Private Nursing Homes, Hospitals and Clinics". Copies of these publications are available
  110W
  in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0028.htm and sb0107.htm respectively.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his written answers of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 159-60W, whether the figures provided include small residential homes of less than four beds. [11947]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The figures include residential care homes (and places) for small homes, defined as homes with less than four places, registered under the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds his Department allocated to local authorities for the uprating of the capital limit for residential care. [11676]

  Jacqui Smith
  Adequate provision was made in the personal social services expenditure settlement for 2001–02 to cover the costs of uprating the capital limits from April 2001 to restore them to their 1996 value.

  Specialist Register
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received concerning the ending of the transition period for entry of non-consultant career grades to the specialist register; and if he will make a statement; [12623]

  (2) what representation he has received on behalf of associate specialists within the National Health Service in relation to their inclusion on the specialist register. [12624]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received a number of representations from medical professional bodies and from individual members of the profession on these issues.

  As laid down in the NHS Plan, we are committed to increasing the number of consultants working in the National Health Service and it is important all available resources are harnessed. We are fully aware there is a pool of doctors within the non-consultant grades with the potential to become consultants. We are committed to removing unnecessary restrictions on the career progression of these doctors to ensure each is given the appropriate opportunity to demonstrate his or her potential.

  NHS (Suspensions)
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) NHS consultants, (b) general practitioners, (c) public health doctors and (d), managers presently suspended, indicating the durations of the suspensions; and what plans he has to shorten the length of these suspensions. [11249]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the quarter ended 30 September 2001, a total of 33 hospital doctors and dentists had been suspended for six months or longer. The information is not broken down as between consultants and public health doctors. Information is not collected centrally on managers. Currently, three general practitioners are
  111W
  suspended by the National Health Service Tribunal. New procedures and guidance are being developed which should reduce both the incidence and length of suspensions. In addition, NHS employers will be able to seek advice from the National Clinical Assessment Authority.

  The NHS Tribunal is due to be abolished in December 2001. Health authorities (and later primary care trusts) will then be able to suspend or remove general practitioners from their lists where appropriate. Time limits will be applied to these suspensions.

  Suicide
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for completion of the national suicide prevention strategy. [11521]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The Department is in the process of developing, under the direction of the National Director for Mental Health, Professor Louis Appleby, a coherent national suicide prevention strategy to ensure that we are doing all we can to prevent suicides. We hope to launch this strategy in spring 2002.

  Private Health Care Provision
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the involvement of the private sector in the provision of health care; and if he will make a statement. [10743]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on 24 October in his evidence to the Health Select

  Major capital schemes approved to go ahead since May 1997—England

  Regional office

  Scheme

  Capital value (£ million)

  PFI schemes reached financial close which are completed:

  South East

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  94

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  65

  South East

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  45

  London

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  93

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust

  65

  Northern and Yorkshire

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  61

  North West

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  66

  Eastern

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust

  158

  8

  Total PH Schemes at Financial Close which are completed

  647

  PEI schemes reached financial close and under construction:

  London

  Bromley Healthcare NHS Trust

  118

  London

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  54

  West Midlands

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  87

  West Midlands

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  64

  Northern and Yorkshire

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  41

  Northern and Yorkshire

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  122

  South West

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  96

  London

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  64

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Leeds Community and Mental Health services Teaching NHS Trust

  47

  London

  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust

  49

  London

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  404

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  22

  London

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  60

  West Midlands

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  137

  South East

  Berkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  30

  15

  Total PF1 Schemes reached Financial Close with work started on site

  1,395

  23

  Total PFI Schemes Reached Financial Close with work started on site or completed

  2,042

  112W
  Committee, the Department is working to improve collaboration between the National Health Service and the private sector. There are five aspects to this collaboration. First, £40 million is being made available to the NHS to buy treatment for NHS patients in the private sector over the coming months. Secondly, officials are working on a national framework agreement to build longer term relationships between the NHS and the private sector with a view to doubling the number of NHS patients treated in private hospitals to 100,000 a year from next year. Thirdly, the Department is exploring the possibility of contracts under which part of or indeed even entire private hospitals would become NHS providers of services for a number of years. Fourthly, Ministers will consider approaches from private sector providers to build privately owned diagnostic treatment centres which will perform operations purely on NHS patients. And finally we are exploring whether private sector providers in mainland Europe have spare capacity available to treat NHS patients. Three sites in south-east England are providing a test-bed for this new policy.

  PFI Hospitals
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many major hospital developments have been authorised under the Private Finance Initiative; how many of these are(a) completed and (b) nearing completion; what plans exist for expanding the number of these developments; and if he will make a statement. [12009]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the major hospital developments which have been approved to go ahead under the private finance initiative. There are currently no plans to approve any further waves of major PH schemes.
  113W

  Major capital schemes approved to go ahead since May 1997—England

  Regional office

  Scheme

  Capital value (£ million)

  PEI Schemes approved to proceed and out to tender

  South West

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  32

  North West

  Central Manchester Healthcare/Manchester Childrens Hospitals NHS Trusts

  199

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals/Newcastle City Health NHS Trusts

  124

  West Midlands

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire/Coventry Healthcare NHS Trusts

  178

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  125

  South East

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  95

  London

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  156

  South East

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  121

  North West

  Blackburn, Hyndbum and Ribble Valley Healthcare NHS Trust

  61

  Trent

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  177

  PFI Schemes approved to proceed but not yet out to tender:

  London

  Bans and The London NHS Trust

  620

  West Midlands

  University Hospital Birmingham/South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trusts

  291

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  116

  South West

  Avon and Western Wiltshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  68

  London

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  56

  South East

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  102

  Trent

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  286

  London

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  44

  Eastern

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  135

  North West

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trusts

  114

  South East

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells/Invicta Community Care NHS Trusts

  175

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Pinderfield and Pontefract Hospitals/Wakefield and Pontefract Community/Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trusts

  164

  London

  Whipps Cross Hospitals NHS Trust

  184

  South East

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  28

  South West

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  104

  Trent

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  66

  London

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  41

  Eastern

  Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust

  80

  Eastern

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  79

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  39

  London

  North Middlesex Hospitals NHS Trust

  73

  West Midlands

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trusts

  224

  South West

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  101

  North West

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  211

  West Midlands

  Walsall Hospitals/Walsall Community Health NHS Trusts

  43

  London

  Paddington Basin

  460

  West Midlands

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  110

  South East

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  28

  South East

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  52

  South West

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  65

  North West

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  41

  64

  Total PFI

  7,510

  Notes:

  The capital value of PFI schemes is approximate and defined as:

  Total Capital Cost to the private sector includes the costs of land, construction, equipment and professional fees but excludes Value Added Tax, rolled up interest and financing costs such as bank arrangement fees, bank due diligence fees, banks' lawyers fees and third party equity costs. As PR procures a service rather than the underlying asset, capital values shown are necessarily estimates.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the total lump sum cash payment received by the NHS Pension Agency from transfers back into the scheme as a result of the outcome of private pensions mis-selling; and if he will estimate the sums still to be received. [12654]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the period 1 October 1996 to 31 October 2001, the National Health Service Pensions Agency received cash payments totalling £753,915,089 in respect of transfers back into the NHS Pension Scheme arising from the review of private pensions mis-selling. The NHS Pensions Agency forecasts receipts to the scheme of a further £95,000,000 over the course of the next two financial years.

  Midwives
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what long-term measures there are to encourage midwives to return to work in the NHS apart from the existing one-off incentive payment; and under what circumstances they would be eligible to receive assistance with child care. [12402]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is working closely with the Royal College of Midwives to encourage and support returning midwives. The National Health Service now offers all midwives improved pay, more supportive and family friendly working and training conditions, better access to continuing professional development and a better career structure. Applications for midwifery diploma courses are 63 per cent. higher than they were in
  115W
  1997–98. In 2000–01 there were 14 per cent. more training places for midwives than there were in 1996–97. Since February 1999, 299 midwives have already returned to the NHS with another 170 in the pipeline.

  Returning midwives receive £1,500 financial support and generous assistance with child care support is available while retraining. All midwives will have access to the benefits offered by the Department's child care strategy. For example, access to on-site nurseries, offering flexible opening and subsidised places, together with access to child care co-ordinators who will help midwives meet other child care needs. Over 60 new NHS nurseries are currently being built, providing an additional 2,500 places.

  The amount of child care assistance received will be determined by whether or not the returner is employed while retraining. For parents who are not employed while retraining, assistance with child care costs incurred while attending refresher training and associated clinical placements should be provided up to Working Families Tax Credit levels.

  For parents who are employed while retraining, employers and local child care co-ordinators should help returners access suitable, affordable child care, including access to the child care support available through the Working Families Tax Credit, where applicable.

  Tonsillectomies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many tonsil operations have been cancelled in the last 12 months; how many patients are waiting for tonsil operations; what the average waiting time is for tonsil operations; if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of single-use tonsillectomy instruments in the NHS; and what supplies of single-use tonsillectomy instruments are held by the NHS and how widely they are distributed. [12601]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of cancellations by procedure is not collected.

  Data are collected on the number of patients waiting for tonsillectomy and adenoidectomies, but tonsillectomies cannot be identified separately. The following table shows the number of patients waiting for tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy operations at the end of August 2001.

  Months

  England

  6–8

  7,299

  9–11

  4,078

  12–14

  1,854

  15–17

  710

  18+

  177

  Total waiting

  44,576

  Source:

  Department of Health waiting list statistics.

  The average waiting times in national service hospitals in England for tonsillectomies are given in the table.
  116W

  Year

  Median days

  1995–96

  128

  1996–97

  116

  1997–98

  127

  1998–99

  147

  1999–2000

  118

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  All surgical instruments used in tonsillectomy operations are Conformitte Europeane marked under the provisions of the Medical Devices Regulations and as such are considered fit for their intended purpose. Any breach of these Regulations would be investigated by the Medial Devices Agency's Compliance Unit and action taken as needed. During the summer there were reports of an increase in the rates of secondary haemorrhage at a number of centres following tonsil and adenoid surgery. This was investigated by the MDA who found that in some cases the diathermy used to close the wound was set at too high a power setting, and the instruments being used were in some cases inappropriate for this site. On 10 October the MDA issued advice to the health service to address these problems.

  The NHS Logistics Authority holds sufficient stock to deliver enough single use instruments to perform 10,000 tonsil and adenoid operations each month. 5,000 equivalent operations were performed in October 2000. Any NHS Trust in England can order the single use instruments from the NHS Logistics Authority. The lead-time for delivery is 48 hours for standard service. Faster delivery can be arranged if required.

  NHS Priority Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on giving priority to NHS patients over private health policy holders for operations in NHS hospitals. [12605]

  Mr. Hutton
  The overwhelming majority of elective operations carried out in National Health Service trusts are performed on NHS patients. Although NHS trusts are permitted to generate income from providing facilities and staff to operate on private health policy-holders and self-pay patients, trusts must ensure that this private activity is not at the expense of their NHS work.

  General Practioner Appraisers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the number of general practitioners who have come forward to act as general practitioner appraisers. [12597]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are pleased with the progress being made towards introduction of appraisal for general practitioners from 1 April 2002. The Department has asked primary care trusts and primary care groups to identify at least three suitable GPs to train as an appraiser. Most have now replied putting forward at least the three nominations requested.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to initiate further trials into the effectiveness of beta interferon; and if he will make a statement. [12366]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers to consider a range of options under which drugs for multiple sclerosis might be made available under the National Health Service. One option is a 'risk-sharing' scheme and until these discussions are concluded we cannot provide the information requested.

  Strategic Outline Cases
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason his Department will not accept strategic outline cases for future hospital projects; and if he will make a statement. [12369]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic outline cases for major capital projects are accepted in specific rounds by the capital prioritisation advisory group (CPAG) which advises

  (£ million)

  (Months)

  NHS Trust

  Original construction tender price

  Final construction cost

  Projected construction time

  Actual construction time

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals

  16.3

  18.4

  23.0

  25.2

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital

  14.4

  14.4

  23.9

  28.2

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  15.2

  15.6

  22.0

  24.0

  Homerton Hospital

  13.5

  14.9

  24.0

  24.6

  Brighton Healthcare

  27.5

  27.5

  31.0

  35.2

  Medway

  36.9

  37.8

  30.4

  35.5

  Mid Essex Hospital Services

  17.6

  19.8

  22.1

  25.8

  Birmingham Childrens Hospital

  23.7

  30.9

  14.7

  23.1

  West Dorset

  24.6

  26.7

  24.6

  34.4

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals

  17.8

  21.9

  23.8

  23.8

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

  26.6

  28.7

  35.9

  42.4

  Royal West Sussex

  20.3

  20.7

  24.5

  26.9

  Lewisham Hospital

  10.4

  11.1

  12.4

  16.9

  Bolton Hospitals

  21.4

  21.6

  36.0

  33.2

  East Kent Hospitals

  12.9

  13.5

  24.0

  24.3

  Salford Royal Hospitals

  10.9

  12.3

  36.0

  41.2

  Northumbria Healthcare

  12.5

  13.3

  28.1

  28.1

  Morecambe Bay

  13.4

  14.7

  39.0

  40.8

  Royal Devon and Exeter

  21.6

  23.8

  35.8

  36.9

  Southend Hospital

  10.9

  11.3

  24.0

  24.2

  NICE
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how his Department monitors the implementation of NICE appraisal guidance throughout the NHS; and if he will make a statement; [11468]

  (2) what advice his Department has given to (a) NHS trusts, (b) health authorities and (c) primary care groups and trusts on how they should audit the implementation of NICE guidance; [11470]

  (3) what advice his Department has given to (a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities on how they should prescribe treatments that are currently undergoing appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; [11467]

  (4) if he will publish the data collected by his Department on the implementation of the NICE appraisal guidance. [11469]
  118W
  Ministers on each scheme's viability. Ministers can consider cases outside of the CPAG where there is an urgent need. The eventual treatment of such cases will depend on the progress and priority of those schemes already approved to commence their procurements, and the number of schemes waiting to go to tender, so as to ensure optimal value for money.

  29 major hospital projects were announced in February 2001, which should be released to the market over the next 36 months.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the original tender price, (b) final cost, (c) projected time for construction and (d) actual time for construction for each of the last 20 new build hospital schemes under traditional public sector funding. [12250]

  Mr. Hutton
  The details for each of the last 20 new build hospital schemes under traditional public sector funding are shown in the table.

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The Department is monitoring the implementation of National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal guidance through its routine performance assessment procedures supplemented by other data sources available to the Department. We will be looking to the Commission for Health Improvement to provide more information in due course. Additionally, we are preparing to implement our manifesto commitment that
  "local health authorities and trusts will be directed to fund drugs and treatments recommended by NICE", and expect to announce further details shortly.

  The Department has not provided specific guidance about the audit of guidance implementation. However, the National Prescribing Centre recently published a guide for National Health Service professionals to help with

  119W
  the process of local implementation of NICE guidance, including audit. NICE itself is developing audit tools which will be published alongside its appraisals.

  Guidance to the NHS on treatments undergoing assessment by NICE is set out in Health Service Circular 1999/176. NHS bodies are advised to continue to use
  120W
  existing arrangements to access the publicly available evidence and to determine local policies for the managed entry of the new intervention.

  We are currently formulating proposals for the release of data about products subject to NICE recommendations.

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

National Health Service
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the proposals contained in the consultation paper Shifting the Balance of Power within the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the discussion document on proposals to shift the balance of power in the NHS was published by the Department of Health on 27th July 2001. Detailed analysis of the 400 plus responses is still taking place. The department proposes to publish a response to the discussion exercise around the end of November.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he accept that NHS managers cannot be expected to meet the challenging targets set out in the NHS Plan while they are in the middle of making major structural changes? Does he not agree with those NHS chief executives who said in a recent survey that they overwhelmingly view these reforms as disruptive, a distraction and likely to torpedo the achievement of the NHS Plan?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with that at all. The structural changes we are making will enhance and support those chief executives in ensuring that we deliver on the NHS Plan. The principal aim is to place decision-making at the
2
primary care trust level so that the people who make the decisions—by 2004 they will have control of three-quarters of the NHS budget—will make them informed by their day-to-day contact with patients. That will enhance the NHS Plan.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I somehow think that he may be—that we on these Benches welcome the devolution of more decision-making power to local clinicians and managers? However, can he tell the House how that transfer of decision-making will be reconciled with the other concept on which the Government have placed great emphasis; namely, that of earned autonomy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, they are easy to reconcile. It is important, of course, that the structure of decentralisation is implemented as quickly as it can be as we believe that the primary care trust level is the right level for most of the key decisions to be made. Earned autonomy takes that one stage further. Within that overall context of decentralisation those organisations which have performed particularly well will have even more authority and decentralised control than the rest of the NHS.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is the Minister confident that these changes will help people who enter hospital as accident and emergency cases? There are still horrific tales of people in hospitals waiting hours and hours on trolleys before they are examined. What guidance are the Government giving on that matter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government announced only a few days ago a continued drive to improve the A&E situation—£100 million is being put in over the next three years to reduce long waits and to end inappropriate trolley waits. In addition, we are seeking changes to the way in which A&E services are run. Patients will be streamed. Those with minor injuries or illnesses will be dealt with separately from those with serious conditions. Specialist nurses and GPs will treat those minor

3
conditions. I believe that will result in a much better organisation of A&E departments. That process has proved extremely successful in the A&E services where it has already been implemented.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, what steps is my noble friend taking to make people aware of these semi-minor accident units, as I find that many people are unaware of their existence?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the changes I explained will be implemented in every A&E department in the country. However, my noble friend is right to point out the existence of what are described as minor A&E facilities or, indeed, NHS walk-in centres. Local publicity campaigns are in place and through NHS Direct patients are referred to those services when that is considered appropriate.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the vast majority of the million people using the National Health Service every day contact their local GP? What do the Government plan to do to modernise GP surgeries?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that contact with primary care and GPs forms an important element of National Health Service provision. We recognise the enormously valuable role that GPs play and we are committed to improving primary care in a number of ways; for example, by increasing the recruitment and retention of GPs, by investing in the GP infrastructure to improve the facilities of GP services and by extending the practice within primary care so that many more services in the future can be provided within the primary care setting as opposed to secondary care hospitals.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many patients do not take up their appointments at GP surgeries? That is one of the problems.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am aware of that. There is a problem throughout the NHS of patients and the public not taking up their appointments. Obviously we do everything we can to urge responsibility on the part of the public and to get home the message that if they do not take up appointments they are depriving another member of the public of the opportunity to see a consultant in hospital or a GP in primary care services. The public have a responsibility in this regard but I also believe that GPs can improve their booking systems. One of the problems at the moment is that often patients have to wait far too long for a non-urgent appointment. If one has to wait a number of days for a non-urgent appointment, one is more likely not to take up one's appointment. We have set a target of a 48-hour maximum wait for non-urgent appointments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Government implement the proposed devolution, will
4
they leave it to local hospitals to find their own ways of reducing waiting lists, or will they continue to set targets from the centre, which we know distorts everything in a hospital and is damaging rather than helpful?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is right that central government should set targets for reducing waiting times in the NHS. That is a key issue that is raised time and again by members of the public. It is absolutely right that the Government should set tough targets for the NHS. However, it is then for the NHS and individual hospitals to decide how they will meet those targets. Our role then is to support those NHS trusts through various mechanisms, such as the Modernisation Agency, which is endeavouring to share best practice throughout the National Health Service. What is involved is a combination of national targets and then local discretion on how they should be implemented.

London: Emergency Response Co-ordination
2.43 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmondasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is a co-ordinated civil defence for London; and, if so, who is in charge of it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, a range of contingency plans to protect London's infrastructure are being co-ordinated through a sub-committee of the Civil Contingencies Committee. The Civil Contingencies Committee is chaired by the Home Secretary and the London Resilience Sub-Committee is chaired by the Minister for London. Operationally, the co-ordination of any response to a major incident in London is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I think that he will agree that its details are not well known to the general public. In the past, London has faced high danger and high risk without panic, but the price of calm is clear evidence of co-ordination in advance of anything happening. Does the Minister therefore see it as a high priority to communicate simply to Londoners the chain of command and areas of responsibility, and in particular to clarify the role of the elected mayor?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that there is no doubt. To translate the final sentence of my Answer, the police are in charge. That is the Question that the noble Lord asked. By and large, the public have confidence in that state of affairs. London is well prepared, mainly because of our experience in the past 30 years, compared with other capital cities. The Civil Contingencies Committee now has three new sub-committees. The Prime Minister is due to answer a Question on that in the other place; he has probably

5
already done so. The London Resilience Sub-Committee is chaired by the Minister for London. The mayor of London has a full role to play in that aspect of the committee's deliberations. There is a key role for the mayor in communicating the issue to Londoners. He is already doing that with some distinction.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is important that the Civil Contingencies Committee should be able to form ad hoc committees relating to any major urban area in the United Kingdom?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. The Civil Contingencies Committee now has a separate subcommittee for UK resilience, as well as the London Resilience Sub-Committee. The third sub-committee deals with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents. The Question was directed specifically at London, but there is a high state of co-ordination among emergency planning officers in all the large cities around the country. Things have changed since 11th September, but our plans were well prepared before then because of the situation that we have faced for the past 30 years.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that co-ordination in London among the various different and very powerful bodies is not generally regarded as a classic text book example to follow? People will be slightly cynical. Who will be the most senior person? The mayor is obviously a powerful person. Is he subordinate to somebody else?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, operationally, the police are in charge. Let us get that clear so that there is no argument about it. The mayor has a key role in communicating and speaking for the people of London. He plays a central part in the London Resilience Sub-Committee and will communicate the issues to Londoners. There are 32 London boroughs, as well as the City of London, making 33 authorities. There are separate emergency services, with a London Emergency Services Liaison Panel. The plans of all the emergency planning offices are being reviewed at the moment. That work is ongoing. There is the issue of the utility undertakings as well. There is a lot of co-ordination going on. Exercises take place, although they are not always advertised. In June last year there was a major exercise in London called Operation Trump Card, based on a chemical incident. Many lessons learnt from that have been put into the existing plans.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, will the Minister kindly explain the relationship between the Civil Contingencies Committee and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority whose powers go back to the Civil Defence Act 1948? That authority would certainly consider that it had a significant role to play.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Civil Contingencies Committee is a committee of the Cabinet. There are other liaison arrangements, but they are all co-ordinated from the centre. No one is going off doing
6
any freelance work; otherwise we could not ensure co-ordination among 33 local authorities, plus the emergency services—the police, the ambulance service, the British Transport Police, the fire brigade and others. There is good co-ordination between all the relevant authorities and the emergency services, as well as the utility providers. They had been broken up over recent years but are now brought within the loop. There are no turf wars. I have tried to explain the situation as clearly as I can.
We are talking about emergency preparations. In the normal course of events, civil defence would mean defence against a hostile attack from a power. We are not talking about that. We are talking about possible terrorist attacks. That is where the Civil Contingencies Committee and the emergency planning come in.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of the speculation in parts of the media in the past few days about potential attacks on nuclear facilities and others borders on the downright irresponsible? Does he agree that careless talk not only costs lives but also sows seeds of doubt in the minds of many people and can therefore sap national morale? Nothing is to be gained by that kind of speculation.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. However, we must also take on board, and it is worth repeating often, that, in terms of preparation for possible terrorist attacks, things have changed since 11th September. Preparations and plans are being made in the light of what happened on that date.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister say who exactly is in the lead for disaster and emergency planning?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, from a political point of view and in relation to co-ordinating the Government's response, it is the Home Secretary, as chair of the Cabinet Civil Contingencies Committee. That committee now has three sub-committees, which are designed specifically to examine London resilience, UK resilience, and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear issues. Operationally in London, it is an issue over which the police have charge.

British Nationals Travelling Abroad
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Baberghasked Her Majesty's Government:
Bearing in mind the present state of world tension, what advice the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is giving to British citizens travelling abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we are continuing to monitor the security

7
situation overseas. We are not aware of any specific threat to British nationals. There have been a limited number of demonstrations in some places. British nationals, in particular those unfamiliar with local conditions, should remain alert, take sensible precautions for their personal safety and avoid public gatherings and demonstrations. Our travel advice is practical, up to date and presents the facts so that travellers can make informed choices about travel. It is kept under constant review on a country-by-country basis.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Can she tell the House specifically what British nationals who find themselves in a foreign country should do in the event of a terrorist attack, or even in the event of the warning of a terrorist attack, as happened in the United States last week?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we recognise that no travel is entirely risk-free. On that basis, we give as much information as we can to allow travellers to make decisions about travel. Our advice will depend on where terrorist action occurs; for example, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office already advises against travel to countries which we consider to pose the greatest risk.
However, if travellers are with a group, we advise them that their tour operator will take responsibility. If they are independent travellers, they should contact their airline. They should certainly contact the British mission in the country where they are travelling, or, in the event of there not being a mission, the mission of another, probably European, country. They should also try to contact their relatives in the UK, who can then use that route to contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. They should also monitor what the local authorities say about the situation on the ground.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what increase in workload has occurred since 11th September in relation to the service provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and what extra resources, if any, it has been able to provide? Does the Minister agree that the Foreign Office treads a very difficult line between being accused of being alarmist and being complacent? Does she agree that it does the job superbly well?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for her comments about the work of the Foreign Office in this respect. It gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the work in particular of our consular staff and of volunteers within the Foreign Office. Since 11th September, not only here and in New York but also in other parts of the world, they have worked round the clock to continue to provide an effective and immediate service.
With regard to workload and extra resources, following the events of 11th September the number of calls to our travel advice unit rose by more than
8
500 per cent to an average of over 1,200 calls a day. At that point, we increased the number of staff and operated the unit seven days a week. However, on 10th October we transferred the call handling to an outside call centre because the volume had become so great. The calls peaked at approximately 1,900 a day on 15th October but they have now begun to reduce to around 400 a day.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister say what advice is being offered to British citizens travelling in areas of conflict about their duties and obligations in respect of loyalty to this country? In particular, what further advice can be offered to people should they be seen to assist in terrorist activities, and can such information be made available on the Internet?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important for me to say to the noble Lord that our advice is not to travel to areas of conflict around the world. A "Don't go" list is already in existence. It includes a number of countries—for example, Burundi—where there is either conflict or the possibility that conflict will occur. With regard to British nationals who may travel to areas of conflict around the world and then perhaps participate in that conflict, we would consider using existing domestic legislation—for example, the Terrorism Act.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that media speculation about the India cricket tour has, frankly, been quite absurd and irresponsible? Will she confirm through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that tours to India are as safe now as they ever have been?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we spent some time talking to the England and Wales Cricket Board about the proposed tour to India. Our talks included a meeting between our High Commissioner and the relevant authorities. The tour is scheduled to go ahead. Our advice in all such situations is always to contact the Foreign Office, either by telephone or by using our website. We are always available to give information and advice. At this point, our information is that the security situation is not such that we would advise against travel to India.

Northern Ireland: Terrorist Contacts
2.57 p.m.
Lord Glentoranasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of evidence of any contacts or attempted contacts between Northern Ireland-based terrorist organisations, including the Real IRA and the Provisional IRA, and Al'Qaeda or its linked terrorist organisations.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is long-standing government policy not to comment on intelligence matters. Noble Lords will

9
know that I am obliged to reinforce that position, although I hope not with discourtesy either to the noble Lord or to the House.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. I accept that it is very correct but somewhat briefer than I might have anticipated. However, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the 32 counties of Ireland are still awash with weapons and explosives, mainly in the hands of terrorists with international links? Does he also agree that the need for the highest levels of intelligence information, backed by the vigilance of a professional police force, is as great as ever in order to protect not only the people of Northern Ireland but also those of mainland Britain, as demonstrated in Birmingham at the weekend?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a substantial body of weapons in the 32 counties, some of which are with loyalist terrorists and some with republican terrorists. Plainly that cannot be acceptable in any civilised society. The noble Lord is quite right. Of course, police work is absolutely essential and, to my knowledge, the police operate extremely closely with the appropriate agencies and with the Army. It certainly struck me at the weekend that vigilance is absolutely essential, not least on the mainland. I believe that sometimes we consider that terrorist activities will occur only in Northern Ireland. Quite plainly, as the noble Lord said, that is not so.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is uncharacteristically inappropriate bearing in mind that, at this particular time, it gives succour to the Pauline Armitage faction in the Ulster Unionist Party and assists in undermining Mr David Trimble?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that that was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. That was not how I took what he said, although I normally try to be as obliging as possible to the Liberal Democrats. The fact is that there is always a knife-edge in Northern Ireland. As it happens, the DUP applied to the courts in Northern Ireland this morning. In parenthesis, I say, with great respect, that we have an extraordinarily high-quality judiciary there—courageous, independent and honourable. As it happened, the Reverend Dr Paisley failed in his challenge.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is therefore for Dr Reid to make these extremely subtle and careful decisions. We are fortunate to have a Secretary of State of that quality in post at this time.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Colombians have recently hosted various IRA members. To what extent does the noble and learned Lord believe that there is an association of terrorist groups linked together around the world?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I simply do not know the full details of the Colombian connection. Her Majesty's Government made it plain that we will assist in any appropriate way. The judicial process, as the noble Viscount knows, is currently continuing in Colombia.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the intervention from the Liberal Benches about my noble friend's Question, does the noble and learned Lord see any connection at all between what my noble friend asked and the very important and continuing need to track down terror and to use every weapon of intelligence to do so? Did we not learn from our personal experience 20 years ago in Northern Ireland that peace processes work only if at the same time one is bearing down on terrorism in every form and using every form of intelligence? Links with Al'Qaeda are an extremely important consideration. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will totally reject the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure exactly what that implication was. I do not think that the question was meant to be unhelpful. As noble Lords know, I am always here to pour oil on troubled waters—and then not ignite it! The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite right. We are hopeful that we may gain the larger prize in Northern Ireland. We all know what an extraordinary achievement that will be. We have to be vigilant all the time. There are vicious and deeply malevolent criminal sections in Northern Ireland who wish to cause damage and to harm their fellow citizens. Many of them are deeply criminal and their actions have nothing to do with political activity at all.

Afghanistan
3.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach) rose to move, That this House takes note of the situation in Afghanistan.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important and timely debate. There have been several notable debates in this House, starting with the first on 14th September. The Government have sought to keep the House and noble Lords fully informed by offering briefings to Opposition spokespersons as well as to noble and gallant Lords. Today's debate comes one day short of being eight weeks after the atrocities in the United States and about four weeks after the commencement of military operations in Afghanistan. We are clearly entering an important phase of operations.
I should like very briefly to explain once again why we and our coalition partners have embarked upon military action against targets in Afghanistan. The events of 11th September stay fixed in the memories of all of us. The loss of innocent life was huge— perhaps 5,000 dead—and 80 British nationals are still missing. Nor was that the only crime of Al'Qaeda. The 1998 bombing of two American embassies in East Africa,

11
which left another 200 innocent dead, and the plot—fortunately foiled—to bomb American airports during the millennium festivities give an idea of Al'Qaeda's ruthlessness and its exercise of terror on a scale that is almost beyond belief.
Almost as extraordinary is the idea that a government should shield any organisation such as Al'Qaeda. But that is exactly what the Taliban regime has tried to do. That cannot even be excused as a kind of misplaced patriotism. Al'Qaeda is as alien to the people of Afghanistan as it is to ourselves. Nor does it represent any true sense of a religious duty, whatever Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar may claim. Condemnation of the 11th September attacks have been as strong across Muslim countries as anywhere else. No; Al'Qaeda and the Taliban are inextricably linked by a breathtaking contempt for innocent life. They are also joined in their refusal to recognise the enormity of the crimes that were committed on 11th September.
The Taliban is a brutal, repressive and hypocritical regime that has a particularly appalling record of abusing the human rights of the women of Afghanistan. Despite that, our coalition still gave it a choice to resolve this situation without military action. By refusing to surrender Osama bin Laden, by refusing to renounce its support for terrorism and by refusing to release the foreign nationals whom it held, and by lying and prevaricating, it brought military action upon itself.
That, in brief, is why the coalition has taken military action in self-defence under the Charter of the United Nations. The action has, I stress, coherent and consistent aims. It is itself part of a wider strategy to defeat international terrorism—a subject to which I will return. Our military aims are: first, to destroy the terrorist camps; secondly, to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden; and, thirdly, to enable us to mount future operations in Afghanistan.
We know that our military objectives are being achieved. Since the air campaign began on 7th October, nine terrorist camps have been destroyed, including all those that were known to be in use when the campaign started. Al'Qaeda's ability to train has been severely limited and therefore so is its ability to carry out further attacks. The first military objective—the destruction of the terrorist camps—has been accomplished.
That is a considerable achievement and one that should serve the world well. But camps can be rebuilt or new ones constructed. Terrorists can hide and return later. So we continue to press home attacks on terrorist targets, including the caves where they live.
The coalition has also acted in support of the second military objective—to pressurise the Taliban to abandon its support for bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda network. We have attacked some 40 separate Taliban military facilities, with encouraging results. All are damaged and many are destroyed. In addition, Taliban forces that are deployed in the field are coming
12
under increasing attack. The bulk of the coalition's military effort is now against such forces rather than against the military infrastructure. The coalition is thereby aiding the Northern Alliance and others who are fighting the Taliban regime. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State described in another place, the coalition has had considerable success in that regard—significant amounts of armour, vehicles, equipment and stores have been destroyed, including some 150 military vehicles and more than 50 artillery pieces.
Of course, we cannot yet say whether our success has been complete. We have not yet achieved the second military objective in full. The Taliban regime is still supporting Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda. However, the Northern Alliance is growing in strength and we know that the Taliban is short of food and military supplies and is feeling the strain. Why else would Mullah Omar demand, on pain of death, oaths of loyalty from leading Afghans? Why else would he permit Muslims whom his confederates have duped to fight in Afghanistan to cross its borders? He previously said that he did not need such people. Noble Lords will accept that I cannot give details of our intelligence but the evidence of severe pressure on the Taliban is growing.
As for our third military objective, the coalition has successfully created the conditions for future military operations in Afghanistan. Nine Taliban airfields have been put out of action and its air force has, to all intents and purposes, ceased to exist. The Taliban no longer has air defence and early warning systems that are worthy of the name. The coalition has air supremacy at medium and high altitude. Coalition aircraft can now fly lower and engage targets in the Taliban's front line. Moreover, ground troops can be deployed, as the United States proved in the raids on Kandahar more than two weeks ago.
We should not expect military action in Afghanistan to be either rapid or easy. Nor should we assume that it will follow the pattern that we saw in the campaigns to expel Iraq from Kuwait or to drive Milosevic's forces out of Kosovo. I do not say that there are no similarities—the early use of air power by a united coalition is an obvious example—but there remain some significant differences. The enemy is not a major and sophisticated standing army. In both of those previous conflicts we needed to make intensive efforts—much greater than we see today—to permit our forces to operate in safety. The targets were more numerous and more obvious.
By contrast, in Afghanistan 22 years of almost continuous war has taken its terrible toll, wrecking the country's infrastructure and creating enormous humanitarian problems long before the first coalition bomb fell a month ago. The leadership of the Taliban has a terrible record of reducing Afghanistan, a country that cries out for help, to a brutalised poverty, more reminiscent of the Middle Ages than the 21st century. Nor are either Al'Qaeda or the Taliban standing armies as we understand the term: one is a group of terrorists and the other its armed supporters. We cannot approach military action against such

13
organisations as though they are conventional states or armies. We must be innovative and fresh in our thinking. Today, we must engage relatively small and often elusive targets, which is not easy. Good intelligence is always important but now it is indispensable.
I shall not speculate on when the campaign may end. What matters is that we are ready, as we are, for the long haul. In another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence remarked that the additional forces that we announced that we had assigned to the campaign against international terrorism on 26th October proved our resolve to see through the campaign. Noble Lords will recall that those forces consist of an amphibious task group with Royal Marines held at high readiness here and in theatre, and transport and maritime reconnaissance aircraft. Those are useful additions to the coalition's deployed military capability but, just as important, we can sustain them for a long period, and they will, of course, reinforce the submarine presence and specialised support aircraft already in place.
All that reinforces the point made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he addressed the National Assembly for Wales last Tuesday. The only hope that the terrorists in Afghanistan have of victory is that we lack the will or the courage to take them on. They hope that we will lose, and they count on us losing, our nerve. They could not be more wrong.
This campaign is much more than a military matter. Last week in Washington, the Secretary of State for Defence visited his American counterpart. He confirmed that the United Kingdom is steadfast in its commitment to the campaign against international terrorism. Many other nations, from north and south as well as east and west, stand with us. As the House is aware, many other nations have made significant offers of military support. I welcome, for example, the decision by Turkey to deploy special forces in support of coalition operations. There are many others.
The United States has made no secret of how much it values our support. Secretary Rumsfeld made that clear last week. He repeated that the United States values our involvement in the planning and prosecution of the military campaign. It welcomes the particular expertise that we have in a number of key capabilities and the considerable experience, talent, and skill that our Armed Forces provide.
I hope that noble Lords will understand that, as a defence Minister, I have naturally concentrated on the military aspects of the campaign against international terrorism and reported to the House, as best as I can, where we are now. But as I said before, that is only one part of the campaign. Our aims are wider. In the longer term they comprise the following: first to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism; secondly, to deter states from supporting, harbouring, or acting complicitly with international terrorist groups; thirdly, to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community and to help it end its self-imposed isolation.
To achieve those aims we cannot possibly rely on military action alone. We must cast our net wider and think more broadly. So alongside the military action we have an active diplomatic strategy. The coalition against global terrorism is the fruit of that. It unites nations of all creeds and peoples across the world. Our task now—it will not always be an easy one—is to maintain and to nurture that coalition, to keep it strong and to allow the world the victory against international terrorism that is so vital for its future security. Without such a victory, what security can there be?
Nor have we neglected financial measures. Members of the coalition have frozen the bank accounts of terrorist paymasters all over the world. As the House has heard, we are examining what legal measures we may implement to prevent terrorists operating among us.
As important as anything else is humanitarian aid. The scale of the humanitarian tragedy in Afghanistan is so great as to make that essential in any case. My noble friend Lady Amos will say more on that when she winds up the debate today. However, I want to make a couple of points. First, a pause in the bombing would not allow more aid into the country. Mr Kenzo Oshima, the United Nations Under-Secretary for humanitarian affairs has made precisely the same point. Who would deliver that aid, and to whom? The Taliban is corrupt and steals food that is intended for the refugees to feed its troops. How would that help the refugees? Secondly, it should never be forgotten that under the Taliban 4.5 million refugees were already on the move before any military action began.
However, I know that military action will inevitably cause legitimate concerns about its impact upon civilians. We would all greatly prefer that no such action was necessary, that bin Laden and his associates gave themselves up and that the Taliban surrendered the terrorists and closed the terrorist camps, but it has refused. Therefore, the coalition had to resort to military action. But in doing so it takes extremely seriously its responsibilities towards the Afghan people. They are not our enemy. Our targeting processes are rigorous and focus upon only legitimate terrorist and military targets. Of course, I would never try to claim that they are perfect and, sadly, nor are the weapons that we employ. But we make every possible effort, and more, to minimise civilian casualties.
At this point it is important to sound a note of warning. The claims of the Taliban regime on this matter are hardly reliable.
The coalition is acting within international law, and it will not do otherwise. Our weapons are lawful, which brings me on to say a word about cluster bombs. Of course, noble lords may be concerned by their use, but I want to refute accusations that were made in another place last week. The cluster bombs used in Afghanistan do not include "CBU 89 Gator" devices. The cluster bombs do not violate the Ottawa convention. They are not armed with minelets fitted with delayed action fuses. They are armed with bomblets that detonate on impact. For certain targets

15
they are the best and most effective weapons that we have. Where that is the case, the coalition is entitled to use them; otherwise we would be putting our own ground forces at unnecessary risk. Although I respect those who argue in an opposite direction, they have to face the dilemma that our own troops could be at risk.
As we approach Remembrance Sunday, 11th November, I am certain that the millions who sacrificed their lives during the two world wars and the other conflicts of the past century would salute the soldiers, sailors and airmen, men and women alike, who make up our Armed Forces today and who are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country and for civilised values.
Our Armed Forces have always fought in defence of civilisation—in the First World War against domination by one country; in the Second World War against fascism and Nazi totalitarianism; and now against the barbarism, for that is what it was, which revealed itself so grotesquely in the attacks of eight weeks ago.
In the past few weeks, I have been privileged to see some of those who may be called upon taking part in exercises on land, air and sea and to meet them personally as well. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that in my view one can only marvel at their skill, their good humour, their courage and their willingness to risk their lives for others.
It is not surprising that our Armed Forces are the envy of the world and the pride of our country. The very least that they can expect from us is to support them in what they are doing. Noble Lords will know that our Armed Forces will not fail us: let us not fail them. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the situation Afghanistan.—(Lord Bach.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, for the fifth time we in this House are turning our minds to aspects of global terrorism. I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for setting out so clearly the current military situation and its context. I look forward to today's debate and to the maiden speeches, in particular that of my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater who can bring to our debates his direct experience of defence, security and warfare. I am sure that we shall benefit from his comments.
Again, I want to make it clear that we on these Benches are in firm and continuing support of the objectives of the Government and the coalition allies, as we understand them. They include the maintenance of the bombing and degrading of the enemy, opening the way for ground operations and ground assaults, and—I believe that it continues to be the objective—the end of the murderous Taliban and the capturing of Mazar-i Sharif so that ground troops can move more easily. We believe that those objectives should go forward with the utmost vigour.
16
I want to raise only three issues today before noble Lords bring their own experience and wisdom to the debate. The first is the question of whether there is an alternative. It is perhaps not understood in the United States how total must be and is the commitment of the allies to the present course of events. As Henry Kissinger recently said, there cannot be an ambiguous outcome to what has been set upon. There must be, and I believe that there will be, a success. That point is important because any doubt strengthens the Taliban and holds back those who would otherwise unravel the Taliban coalition and move to the likely winner. In my view, there is not a likely winner; there is a winner. That will be the force of the commitment of the allies. Freezing rain or snow, Ramadan or not, sooner or later the operations led by the Americans in the coalition will succeed in their objectives.
Sometimes I think how lucky in another age the Duke of Wellington was that he could sit behind the Torres Vedras lines all winter without being lectured by armchair critics and tabloid newspapers on how he should rush out and hit the French early. He knew when to wait and perhaps our military leaders also know when to wait and when to go forward and could do with a little less armchair advice from those further back.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, generously said, some people are wobbly and are not sure about all the objectives. In no way do I want to raise doubts, but there was a hint of doubt in the comments of the Foreign Secretary as to whether the removal of the murderous Taliban is a policy objective or not. Some say that it is and some say that it is not, so perhaps that could be clarified later in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, also said that he recognises but does not agree with—and nor do I—the unease with the continuing bombing operation. In the other place there were a small number of sincere doubters, particularly behind the Government on the Labour Benches. Perhaps they received too much publicity but they expressed their doubts. Having read Hansard I see that there are two views among the Liberal Democrats and perhaps we shall hear more about that today.
On these Benches there is only one view; that is, if the bombing stops it will help the Taliban. Helping the Taliban means helping one of the most cruel, killing regimes that has yet imposed itself on people in the past 50 years and it means death to more Afghans. Stopping the bombing will accelerate the killing and the misery, the executions and the deaths, the drought and starvation which cursed the Afghans for years prior to 11th September and will curse them still as long as the Taliban rules in Kabul. Those people have seized food, blocked convoys, stolen trucks and put troops in schools and mosques in the hope that the children and the worshippers will be hit by the bombs. They are people for whom "cruelty" and "moral standards" have almost no meaning. The reality is that the humanitarian help needed in Afghanistan on a massive scale cannot begin to meet that scale, although many brave people are involved and doing their best,

17
until the Taliban and all its works have gone. The refugees will not cease flowing until then. That is the position as regards that matter.
The second issue I want to raise is the coalition diplomacy, which we support. I do not agree with those who criticised the Prime Minister's visit to Syria and I do not agree with critics elsewhere in Europe who described the Prime Minister's energies in gathering together European colleagues and in travelling around the world as "bellicose". I reject both points of view. If there were any losers from the Syrian excursion, they are the blinkered advisers of young Bashar al-Assad who do not understand the interests or potential of that wonderful and remarkable country which Bashar al-Assad's father ruled so fiercely for so long. Those people show that they are ignorant of the modern world.
If I have any worry on that front—and it is a widely shared worry—it is that perhaps the Prime Minister is trying physically to do too much. Perhaps the ministerial support he is receiving could in some cases be stronger and more vigorous. However, I have no doubt that the coalition diplomacy is being well led by President Bush and his advisers and by our Prime Minister.
The real task of the coalition is not only to keep the western allies in line and to keep the Atlantic narrow, but to strengthen Islam against the perverted, twisted versions of Islam, the nihilist versions being promoted as if they are the mainstream of Islamic thinking, which they are not. I would not even say that the battle is against the fundamentalists. That word is wrongly used; for instance, in today's Daily Telegraph. There are plenty of fundamentalists in Islam as there are in every religion and some of the fundamentalist Muslims are extremely wise men of God. The idea that all fundamentalists are extreme nihilists and killers is a ridiculous confusion and one that does not help identification of our true friends among the Muslim religion and the real enemies of anyone of any religion in the alliance and network of Al'Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
That is why we need to accelerate our efforts, for instance in trying to help to achieve a Middle East settlement between Israel and Palestine. That is why we need to find the justice of which the Prime Minister spoke, not as an appeasement for terror but to increase unity and strength against terror. For those reasons it is right to push harder than ever for a settlement in the Middle East which must be based on Israel's right to exist and Palestine's right to be reborn.
My third point concerns the question of a new government in Kabul. A great deal of thought has been given to that matter, none of which is yet very clear. Does the UN have a role at some stage in supervising a government in Kabul? Is the Northern Alliance the body on which we put all our chips? The Northern Alliance is a fairly loose alliance with many rivals, and it is not the only body in opposition to the Taliban. The Minister referred to the Northern Alliance and others. I presume that by "others" he meant the Pashtun in the south and people like the late Abdul Haq. He was
18
seized and his life illegally and cruelly thrown away by the Taliban. There are other very important Pashtun leaders who could play an important part in a new government in Kabul. Is it envisaged that they will do so? I should like to hear more on that subject in the Minister's winding up speech.
Noble Lords will have noted that one world leader who has no doubts on the subject is Mr Putin. He arrived in Afghanistan and declared that the backing of Russia, which is still a mighty nation, was absolutely behind the Northern Alliance. That may be wrong, but at least it is clear. Are we to risk not being clear enough about whom we intend to back? Therefore, are we not as clear and straightforward as we should be in our dealings with General Musharraf, who is in a difficult situation and requires very clear intentions from us about how matters will develop if he is to hold his country together?
Incidentally, I add an expression of grief, which I suspect is shared by many noble Lords, about the 16 Christians who were shot down in their church in Pakistan. I agree that it may not be as dreadful a crime as the horrors of 11th September, but it was frightful in itself and one for which expressions of sorrow are needed all round, including from Muslim leaders. I hope that they come.
On past patterns in world crises impatience will grow. People are already asking why something is not being done, why we do not go in, or whatever. There will be big setbacks, then a kind of victory and, after that, years of patient police work—bank surveillance, as the Minister said—and endless vigilance. We have our part to play at home, perhaps a little more vigorously than so far. Too many people in the world still regard Britain as a safe haven. I believe that the French police refer to the capital as "Londonistan" because so many people who plot terrorist activities overseas are housed here.
I know that the Government have that in their sights, but I believe that to some extent they will have to replace the processes of legal evidence with the processes of intelligence, which by definition cannot be displayed publicly, if they are to identify and get rid of some of the worst offenders. That will mean reservations to the European Convention on Human Rights similar to those that our German and French neighbours have already made with quite effective results. More thinking of that kind will be needed. I ask the Minister when the Government will announce deployment not only of legal evidence but intelligence, which in times of war is needed, to nail the worst offenders.
In these kinds of situation often we seek to bury the past in search of harmony and peace. While that is commendable, as I believe the noble Lord indicated in his excellent speech, this time we should not bury the past but commemorate 11th September for decades to come. It may be that the Government have in mind—or it has been suggested that there should be—some way to commemorate 11th September because it will remain permanently in our minds and those of our children and grandchildren. Above all, the

19
fundamental objective is to do everything humanly possible to prevent the dreadful events of 11th September ever happening again. If we do that at least no one can look back to these times and say that we lost heart and left the task undone.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is good to have a further debate on this rapidly moving situation, but we are committed to a very long-term campaign. As we continue this campaign both Houses of Parliament must consider how to manage the regular process of reporting, consultation and advice which the Government have started very well. We hope that within the next few weeks or months we shall hear that the Taliban regime has been overthrown, or, more optimistically, that there is some agreement on a replacement regime in Afghanistan, but we all appreciate that that will not itself resolve the entire conflict. There is the short-term problem of what to do about Al'Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan and the regime which supports them. There is the much wider, longer-term problem about terrorist networks across the Muslim world in general.
We all need to be concerned that we do not drift from the larger issue into preoccupations with the immediate; namely, that we move from a war against terrorism internationally, with its base in Afghanistan, into what can easily become a war against Afghanistan. I read an excellent and very well judged article by William Pfaff in the Herald Tribune last Friday which suggested that the United States is very easily slipping from one to the other. It is important that America's allies remind the United States that this is a much more complicated situation.
The Taliban regime and its links to Al'Qaeda are only a part of the adversary we face. As we see from reports of volunteers from elsewhere who come to fight for the Taliban regime, this is not simply an Afghan problem. We know that the closeness of the links between Al'Qaeda and the Taliban regime are built around the number of non-Afghans who are fighting to preserve the Taliban regime and impose it on the rest of the Afghan situation. Al'Qaeda in effect has settled in Afghanistan, as communists from around the world settled in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s while their primary objective and interests lay elsewhere.
We must remember all the time the wider context: the delicate situation of Pakistan and its relationship with India; the implications for Indonesia and the Philippines, with which this network has active links, based on extremely good intelligence; above all, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, and the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It will not count as a victory if the western-led coalition succeeds in crushing the Taliban regime only at the cost of destabilising, or even contributing to the overthrow of, regimes elsewhere.
20
We need a broad response that is political, economic, ideological and educational, and the military instrument can be only one part of the response. The need for civilian control over the military is even more important when fighting is under way.
One of the major functions of an air force is to bomb. Once it starts it tends to go on, as I believe, in retrospect, Bomber Command did in World War II, rather more than it should be allowed to do. Political leaders must tell it when bombing has reached the point of diminishing returns with limited targets and it should stop, or at least pause. The British have been through terrorist and anti-terrorist campaigns and have learnt painfully that restraint in the use of force is a necessary part of resolving the long-term problem. I refer to the excellent campaign in Malaya years ago, in which I suspect the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was himself involved. The problems of Northern Ireland, where in retrospect the mistake was to use force much too openly in the Londonderry riots in 1970, were followed by a learning process in which it was understood that military restraint and a wider political response was a necessary part of dealing with a much lower level of terrorist problem. It has, nevertheless, taken more than a generation to reach the point where we may at last be in sight of sustained peace.
What kind of response should we therefore be talking about? Over the weekend, I read again the famous article by George Kennan on The Sources of Soviet Conduct. In that he sets out the arguments for long-term containment of a not entirely dissimilar threat which he describes as,
"the product of ideology and circumstances".
He said that it was led by men who were:
"Frustrated, discontented, hopeless of finding self-expression … in the confining limits of the [established] Tsarist political system, yet lacking wide popular support for their choice of bloody revolution".
So they found in Marxist theory, as these revolutionists have in fundamentalist Islam,
"a highly convenient rationalization for their own instinctive desires".
He went on to say that,
"it cannot be easily defeated or discouraged by a single victory on the part of its opponents … but only by intelligent long-range policies on the part of Russia's adversaries".
He concluded with the clear message to the United States, that it is,
"a question of the degree to which the United States can create [and maintain] among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what it wants, which is coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a World Power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the major ideological currents of the time".

21
That is still valid in these very different circumstances. We are talking about how to contain a threat to western values by a fundamentalist ideology without risking those values which we hold dear. I emphasise, as he emphasised, what steady nerves it took over an extended period to stay the course and to outlive the communist threat.
There was a wobble of panic within the United States in the early 1950s—the whole McCarthyite period. But by and large western societies won by sticking firmly to their liberal principles at home and abroad. Therefore, they gradually became more attractive both to the wider public and to leaders within the socialist world. Clearly, we must stick to those principles now.
We must remember that we should throughout observe higher standards than our opponents and hold ourselves within tighter constraints. That is why people in my party are critical of the use of cluster bombs. That is why we are sceptical about the continuation of large-scale bombing. That is the military instrument getting out of control, carrying on in its own automatic way and not thinking through how one wins the hearts and minds of those who are sympathetic to, and who might easily be tipped into active supporters of, the other side, not just in Afghanistan but throughout large parts of the world.
At the same time we must be actively concerned with the humanitarian disaster, about which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, spoke in his opening speech. We must make sure that our policy towards refugees, particularly Afghan refugees—there are many in this country and in the United States—remains consonant with our own civilised principles. If we are successful, the Afghans whom we have in this country may well be among those who go back to help rebuild their country in more peaceful and stable times.
We must be concerned about relations with our own Muslim communities in Britain, in France, in Germany and in the United States, to be sure that we show to them higher standards than they often show within their own countries from which their parents or grandparents came. We must also be concerned with related conflicts. There is the problem of Kashmir. That is extremely closely related to the Taliban regime and the various other revolutionary groups, some of which have been sponsored by Pakistani intelligence in the past, which are concerned to maintain the conflict with India over Kashmir. We also must appreciate that the Kashmiri conflict feeds immediately back into the internal politics of this country.
Furthermore, we must be concerned with the Arab/ Israeli conflict. That is part of the jigsaw. It is not the whole of it, but it is a part which one simply cannot deny. Part of our message to our Israeli friends must be that our support for Israel has always rested on the assumption that Israel will continue to behave better than its adversaries. That support weakens with every occasion that it relies on power and might and forgets about justice and right over the
22
assassination of opponents, over the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, in Gaza and elsewhere.
After the last debate the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, recommended that I should look at the excellent article by Amos Elon in The New York Review of Books. It states:
"If Israel had not annexed East Jerusalem in 1967 and planted 200,000 settlers there, it could have had peace with Jordan in the early 1970s. It chose not to. Ever since, Israel has been unable to resolve the painful paradox of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security".
That is part of the continuing paradox which we must persuade the Israeli population, even if we are unable to persuade its current government, must now be reversed.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that multilateral co-operation maintaining the current coalition is a necessary and important part of our response. I welcome the efforts which the British Government and, in particular, the British Prime Minister have put in in recent weeks into maintaining that coalition.
However, as we move on and think about where to go from here, we should also be thinking about how we can strengthen European co-operation to make sure that these values are promoted and how to use that co-operation to strengthen that weak global institution—the United Nations. There is room for much more effort to help reform the United Nations.
This is not a short-term war. It is a long-term effort to contain an attack on western values which we can successfully contain if only we stay true to those values.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, once this country becomes involved in active operations, those of us with some military expertise—albeit a bit out of date—have to be careful over what we say so as not in any way to weaken resolve or, however unintentionally, to compromise what may turn out to be actual military plans or train of events.
However, in the context of this infinitely complicated and politically weighted operation now going on in Afghanistan, I make three largely military points. First, from a military point of view, I am much happier about the comparatively slow tempo of operations than I would be rushing in where angels and wise men fear to tread.
The early political hype, much of it for domestic consumption after the horrors of 11th September which so demanded action, quickly picked up and, embellished by some of the media looking for compelling eye-catching stories, encouraged the expectation of "heads on chargers" within a reasonable period of time whereas anyone who knew Afghanistan and the Afghan people and had studied military history would have realised that the task was going to be very difficult and lengthy.

23
How much better, both from a military point of view and bearing in mind the vital importance of surprise as a principle of war, if perhaps we could have had fewer optimistic statements of intent, raising immediate expectations, so that the opposition could have been kept ominously guessing for rather longer. But we are where we are and the long haul is before us, perhaps through the whole winter and even beyond. During that time it will be most important to put in order our security affairs at home, while within the framework of the overall aim and based on ever-improving intelligence, we—that is, the Americans with ourselves at their side—should look for opportunities for relevant and profitable operations in the ground/air field. That would be a sensible way of going about it. Furthermore, as has already been said, it is most important that any such operations must end in success and not in failure.
It is my earnest hope that very soon the Americans will be able, and will feel strong enough, to select and undertake operations other than merely continuing with high-level bombing. Undoubtedly the latter will have inflicted damage and caused disruption to the Taliban, as noble Lords have heard. But an indefinite continuation of that type of bombing—sadly and inevitably causing further casualties among noncombatants—not only risks losing some of the moral high ground in the propaganda war; it also puts the coalition, already affected by the situation in Palestine, under increased pressure. Moreover, experience in World War II, in Vietnam and in Kosovo throws doubts on whether this kind of bombing does write down the military forces of the opposition nearly as much as initially it is always expected to do. To achieve that, it is necessary to get down to low-level, if not ground-level, tactics. In World War II, whether in Italy or in Normandy, when they were about to be carpet bombed the Germans were adept at moving out of the area. When the bombing had finished, they would move back in. I am quite certain that the Afghans will not have been slow in developing some kind of technique.
My second point concerns an equally important part of the entire exercise: the home front. Security is also a vital principle of war. If the Government are determined, as they must be, to do all that is necessary to protect this country from any possible increased terrorist threat, which it is clear must be taken seriously, I would ask them not to ignore the potential utility of the Territorial Army. Many individual TA volunteers even now are serving—on a purely voluntary basis—alongside their regular colleagues on overseas deployments. In fact, they constitute almost 10 per cent of all those so deployed. But should it look as though the terrorist threat continues to develop, which would soon persuade employers on side, some partial mobilisation of the Territorial Army to guard vital and vulnerable points and installations, or to cordon off and protect certain key areas, would act not only as a deterrent, but would show, as it has in America with the National Guard, that the Government really mean business. I suggest that it
24
would also be a strong motivating factor for the Territorial Army and thus would encourage recruitment.
The regular Army, going back to Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, has often been slow to recognise the value of the TA. It hardly lifted a finger when damaging and quite unnecessary cuts were made by this Government, in particular to the infantry. I am sad to observe that in the context of an otherwise excellent Strategic Defence Review. But whenever the TA has been called out, in peacetime and in war, those volunteers have performed splendidly. Now that attention is turning back to the home front in a number of ways, and with the regular Army still significantly under strength, it is only right that we should consider urgently how best to use the Territorial Army in the present circumstances.
Finally, with our Armed Forces possibly having to face—according to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who from now on I shall refer to as the CDS—the most difficult and prolonged operation since the Korean War, I hope that the Prime Minister will ensure that he sets aside time to consult the Chiefs of Staff collectively. It is perfectly proper that the CDS, as the principal military adviser to the Government, should be the sole representative of the Armed Forces in a small war Cabinet. However, experience has shown that, quite apart from four minds—or five, with the vice-CDS—being better than one when military arguments and judgments on risks are finely balanced, as is invariably the case, it is invaluable for the Prime Minister to have a measure of direct contact with the professional heads of the individual services which are, or shortly are likely to be, primarily involved.
During World War II the Chiefs of Staff as a body were recognised as making a major contribution to victory, including setting the scene for the greatest combined operation of all time. The then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, consulted and articulated with all the Chiefs of Staff, as well as with their forceful and highly competent chairman, the then General Sir Alan Brooke.
During the Falklands campaign, in some ways a model of political and military co-operation and when again there was a most distinguished and respected naval CDS with the same powers as exist today, the then Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, met frequently with all the chiefs, both in Downing Street and at Chequers. Indeed, before the key decision was taken on whether a landing on the Falklands should go ahead, all the chiefs were arraigned individually to give their appreciation of the situation and their forecast of what would happen.
However professional the CDS may be, when active operations are imminent there can be no substitute for the depth of expert knowledge as regards operational detail which the professional heads of the services particularly involved at the time are in the best possible position to impart. That observation is based on a lifetime of experience in that environment, and on their constitutional responsibility to the men and women of their services, who will be laying their lives on the line and who, I know, we shall all be wishing God speed.
3.57 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to address your Lordships' House, and to thank my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for his kind introduction, claiming that I will bring to the debate some experience. When addressing your Lordships' House I am conscious of the wealth of experience ranged about. It is not easy, even for a former Secretary of State for Defence, to find himself addressing four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff sitting on the Benches opposite. It is exactly that experience which this House can bring to bear on critical issues such as the subject of today's debate that is of great benefit, not only to our country but also to the wider discussion of the issues at a testing time for the world.
I claim some modest background of experience. I was involved in trying to tackle the problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I had the privilege of being Secretary of State for Defence during the Gulf War, involving as it did both American and British forces, along with Muslim and Islamic interests. Most recently I have had the privilege of serving as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am delighted to see a number of former colleagues from that committee present in your Lordships' House today.
Without question, we are facing an acutely difficult challenge. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made clear the complications and difficult nature of the situation. It was I believe described very accurately on this morning's "Thought for the Day"; in the truest sense of the words, it is an "unholy mess". The scale of the outrages committed in New York and Washington, along with the obvious intention that those should not be the only outrages that will be committed if unchecked, demands the most positive and firm response.
Yet at the same time, as noble Lords have discussed on four previous occasions, we must consider the complexity of the environment in which that action needs to be taken. The political, religious, strategic and geographic all demand not only extraordinarily careful preparation, but the greatest sensitivity, in the knowledge that clumsy handling or even serious accident and misfortune could provoke the most serious consequences for the whole world. There could be the risk, perhaps, of the Talibanisation of Pakistan, a nuclear power, and the risks that that could represent. There is the suggestion that central Asia might be on the verge of becoming a permanent war zone, and the implications of the Caspian oil region, which now has the potential to take over from the Gulf as the major oil-producing region of the world. There is a cocktail of conflicting interests of the most serious nature. Once again, we must consider the fragility of the Gulf region and not least of Saudi Arabia, which is faced with a population of whom 50 per cent. are under 18 and which is very fertile ground indeed, with rising unemployment, to the attractions of more extremist propaganda.
26
The failure to tackle the situation and achieve a successful outcome threatens instability not only to other countries, but, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall rightly said, to the security of our own country. As the United States has now learned from the tragedy of the twin towers, having thought that it was a world power that could operate in other countries—but that it would never come home to roost—we now know that no country is an island. Our island nation is, indeed, as exposed as any other to the threats of terrorism. We must not fail in our objective, not least for ourselves and the wider world, but also not least for the people of Afghanistan. The clearest evidence that we have had over recent years before this latest crisis overcame us of the pathetic refugees in Sangatte and the boat people drowning on their way to try to seek refuge in Australia showed the intolerance of the regime. It showed that Afghanistan, in a very real sense, was a failed state and illustrated a situation that has to be tackled in the interests of the widest world.
In the presence of former colleagues and Chiefs of Defence Staff, I shall not in this contribution discuss military strategy. I certainly believe that those who now have the responsibility are entitled to our full support in the very difficult challenges that they have. I must say that I do not think that they have a very easy task. My noble friend referred to the ability of the Duke of Wellington to maintain his position behind the Torres Vedras for the winter. I was wondering how Waterloo would have gone—one can look in the Royal Gallery to appreciate this point—if the Emperor Napoleon had had access to the Internet and had been able to get full information about the troop movements and intentions of the Duke of Wellington and Marshal Blucher and about their exact position at any particular time. I worry about the problem of freedom of information and a free society in which there is full reporting, which is not an easy one. We also had it in the Gulf War. I am sure that I am not the only one of your Lordships who has been concerned about the incredibly full reporting of the possible military developments on the allied front and the assistance that it can provide to our enemies. In any military campaign—I have had this point drummed into my head by certain noble Lords opposite—the element of surprise, if it can be achieved, is a very important ingredient in the military campaign. Indeed, I claim that, in the Gulf War, there was an element of surprise about the land campaign as it was launched. It is extremely difficult to see how that would be maintained in the current situation.
This may seem to be a slight paradox but none the less I want to emphasise the importance of effective communication in modern warfare and the television, radio and media age. It is absolutely vital. I welcome the fact that Mr. Alastair Campbell has, I understand, been in Washington. I welcome the fact that we are now making a bigger input into these areas. We learned a lot in the Gulf War and have moved on a lot from the days of Mr. MacDonald in the Falklands with his dictation-speed reports on our activities, which a number of noble Lords will remember. We

27
studied that and tried to learn the lessons for the Gulf War. The noble and gallant, Lord Craig, will remember the efforts that we made to try to improve our presentation and communication. It is a vitally important aspect. Somebody who has certainly learned it is Mr. bin Laden, who is very much aware of that. His video productions are evidence that he understands the importance of communication. In this connection, we must be certain, as part of good communication and part of building trust, that we have got to be prepared to tell the bad news as well as the good and to tell the truth at all times. In that respect, I feel that the BBC World Service, which, I understand, is much respected in Afghanistan and is listened to very widely, has a very important role to play. Its role is not to report propaganda, but to report the truth and to carry conviction in that way.
I should like to add two other points. First, I had experience in the Gulf War of working very closely with the United States, as have other Members of your Lordships' House. The consultation and relationship were excellent. It started splendidly. I recall my noble friend Lady Thatcher being invited by President Reagan at the start to attend a cabinet meeting and speaking to the American cabinet at that time. It started splendidly, but it was difficult to sustain in some of the later moments. Indeed, there was not a great British input to the decision as to when the Gulf War finished. With regard to the importance of the role played by the Prime Minister, this situation has started splendidly in terms of consultation. I hope that that close consultation will be sustained. Of course, we are the junior partner in military terms and the United States is by far the greatest resource in this great undertaking, but the British contribution is real. It is absolutely vital that the United States has partners and allies. This is an alliance and the undertaking cannot be seen as US imperialism and a sole venture by a super power. We have a very important role to play. We have military capabilities that can help to fill certain gaps for the United States, but we also have independent experience of the people and territories concerned.
I spent my National Service in the Somerset Light Infantry. When ordered first to report to duty, I reported to the Jellalabad barracks in Taunton. I have in my pocket the cap badge of the Somerset Light Infantry—now the Light Infantry—which has the battle honour, Jellalabad. My noble Friend has been reading Hansard, if it was called Hansard in those days, of 1842, when Sir Robert Peel rose to propose a vote of thanks to Lord Ellenborough for the freeing of the hostages and the successful raising of the siege of Jellalabad at that time. He felt free to act because he had only just come into government. He left to the previous Liberal government the blame for the tragedies and disasters that had been the earlier part of that war. I would not want to introduce into my maiden speech any more controversial a note than that.
We had certain problems in the Gulf War—there is no secret about it—but I also believe that the United States was not always as sensitive as it perhaps should
28
have been to some of the local custom, practice and Islamic concerns. We have a very long history of experience in those countries. That history and experience can be of great benefit in the consultation that needs to be sustained.
I have one particular concern that I would like to leave with the House. It is clear to us all that the tragedy in response to which it has been necessary to take the current action was a failure of intelligence and security. Of course, that is not to say that intelligence and security can always anticipate any terrorist outrage. That is the major challenge that they face. None the less, everybody working in the intelligence field bitterly regrets the failure to anticipate this particular event.
General Henry Shelton, who retired as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 30th September, said that, in his judgment, one of the failures of the United States was that it had tended to cut right back on its human intelligence and had made a much greater investment in technical intelligence—in satellites, interception capability, imagery and so on. To a very large extent it had deliberately got out of the "human intelligence business", and had paid a very high price for it. As he rightly said—the message comes through clearly—you cannot create human intelligence only when you need it. If you want human intelligence you have to build it and establish it against the time when you may need it in the future.
Colleagues who served with me on the Intelligence and Security Committee will remember that we were challenged when we first started to consider the expenditure levels of our intelligence and security services. The Cold War had ended and the press comment at that time was, "The Cold War is over. That is why we used to have spies. That is why we wanted intelligence and security. Now we ought to have our peace dividend. Why should not there be a substantial cut in the intelligence and security budgets?". That was the theme.
Our persuasion at that time was that the awfulness of the Cold War in its frozen state provided a kind of security. In a very real sense, the world in which we currently live is a more dangerous and unstable place, and the need for intelligence is all the greater.
Perhaps I may seek your Lordships' indulgence and quote what was said in the 1998–99 Intelligence and Security Committee report. It stated:
"Last year we spoke of the scale of terrorist attacks around the world, which averaged 60 a week, and of increasing concern over Islamic terrorist threats. This year saw the attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam which killed 220 people and wounded 5,000 and which confirmed the scale of the threat posed by Usama bin Laden and other Islamic groups".
That was a repeat of what was said in an earlier Intelligence Committee report.
We need to ensure that we sustain and enhance our intelligence and security capability. That will need leadership and co-ordination. No longer do we have separate domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence; the threat that we now face is global. Governor Tom Ridge, who has now been made responsible for

29
homeland security, has the daunting challenge of co-odinating the work of no less than 50 agencies involved in intelligence and security in the United States. We have rather fewer, but it is vitally important that their work is co-ordinated and well led.
I make one plea to the Government, which has been a constant plea in the committee's reports. I have here an excellent document on the national intelligence machinery. It all comes together in the Ministerial Committee on Intelligence Services under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. It is very impressive; it has a very good structure. It needs leadership; it needs evidence of its presence. The only snag is that it has never met. Our committee's modest plea to the Prime Minister was that it should meet at least annually to give a message about the importance of co-ordination and leadership from the top.
I apologise for straying seriously over my time. It is often said that the events of 11th September were a wake-up call to the United States, to the world and to this country. When I conducted Options for Change—which reduced our forces to what would now seem a very attractive figure, if we still had them, of a quarter of a million men and women in uniform—I was challenged by a BBC reporter, who asked why we had reduced the Armed Forces to that level and not reduced them much further. He said, "Why do we need all these people in uniform? The Cold War is over. The Warsaw Pact has gone. What is the threat against which you are seeking to sustain such a high level of forces?" I answered, "It is the threat of the unexpected". That was a fortunate answer because a week later Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and another unexpected event had happened.
We must have the defences and intelligence capability to enable this country to protect itself and to play its part for good in the world against any other threat of the unexpected that may arise.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, one of the great things about our parliamentary democracy is that across the Floor and across the party divide it is possible to form genuine respect for those of other parties. I had the privilege of being in the other place with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, some time ago, but even then I had come to admire him as a person who never spoke unless he had something serious to say, and who, when he did speak, spoke profoundly and in such a way that we all felt it was essential to listen. The noble Lord's speech today has been wise, reflective and based on real experience and expertise. It was full of promise of what we shall enjoy from him in our deliberations in the years ahead.
I should at the outset, as I have before, declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association and because of my professional work with the independent charitable think tank on security affairs, Saferworld.
Towards the end of his remarks, my noble friend the Minister referred to the message that we should be sending to our Armed Services. I am glad that he concluded on that note. I am certain that, throughout
30
the debate, all speakers will be thinking of our armed services and the immense burden and responsibility they are carrying on our behalf. We shall be thinking also of their families, their friends and their local communities.
No one can fault the Government on their readiness to come to this House and the other place to discuss with Members of both Houses what is happening in this campaign. I am glad that they are ready to do so because there is much to be discussed. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, spoke—we perhaps have not spoken enough about this in our deliberations—of the domestic implications; of the role, for example, which the Territorial Army may or may not have in ensuring security at home. It is security at home about which many people are thinking very seriously.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that there is, across the party divide, great admiration for the courage and energy our Prime Minister has thrown into his leadership in this desperately demanding situation. The decisiveness of his actions has been striking. He has shown courage, for example, in making his recent journey to the Middle East. I can imagine that plenty of people advised him that he should think very hard about undertaking such a journey. But his courage in undertaking that journey, and his statement that it is better to talk to the people with whom you have differences than to stay at home and agonise about the difficulties, is the kind of leadership we need.
The Prime Minister's instinctive understanding of the dimensions of the trauma through which the United States has passed has been very important in this role. If we have a special relationship, he knows what that special relationship demands of us in this situation—close and loyal friendship. But close and loyal friendship involves candour—in our personal lives, let alone our political lives. Relationships become of little significance if we gloss over differences, if we suppress our anxieties, and if we do not talk openly and sincerely to our friends. As the crisis progresses, there are anxieties which we hope the Prime Minister and the Government are honestly discussing with their colleagues in the United States.
The vocabulary and language used are important. I believe that these have become much better as the campaign has progressed. The language used today by my noble friend the Minister illustrated that. However, there are grounds for anxiety about the use of the word "war" in the earlier stages. Immediately the word is used, we find ourselves in a position of qualifying what we mean by "war". We say that, of course, we are not at war with the people of Afghanistan, or with Islam. On reflection, it would have been better from the beginning to talk about criminality, terrorism, unspeakably wicked action and our determination to bring those responsible to justice. That is the language that we now seem to be using, and I believe that that is progress.
There has also been anxiety about the extent to which attention has focused on bin Laden. Perhaps that is related to the language of war. There has been

31
a growing feeling among some who support the Government in their commitment that it would perhaps have been better to talk about dealing with the system and the arrangements that the terrorists have in place, and about bringing the operational terrorists to justice and isolating bin Laden, rather than seeing the war aim exclusively in terms of capturing bin Laden. That has not been what the Government have said, but it is an interpretation that has gained momentum.
Reference has been made to the issue of intelligence. There are, of course, anxieties regarding the fact that the events of 11th September took place, and that there was no warning that events of that order were likely. There is anxiety about how much we really know about the whereabouts of the terrorists and how they operate. The question that we must address—it was rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater—is whether we are putting enough resources into our intelligence services.
Then there is the issue of the military action itself. I am one of those who believe that once military action has been decided upon, one must do what is necessary. But what is done must be in keeping with the objectives as spelt out, in this case by my noble friend the Minister. It must also be in keeping with the demands of the civilised values that we say we are fighting to defend. In that context, perhaps I may put some specific questions to my noble friend Lady Amos in the hope that she will be able to deal with them in her reply.
Do the rules of engagement spell out not merely the minimising of civilian casualties, but the protection of civilian populations at all times? Does proportionality—as well as careful targeting at all times—remain central to strategic and tactical operations? Here it may be relevant to mention the anxiety about cluster bombs. I heard my noble friend's remarks, but the anxiety regarding such bombs relates to their high failure rate and the fact that they bequeath a big future problem for civilian populations.
Before it is undertaken, is every bombing or missile operation, without exception, rigorously tested in terms of precisely how it will assist the land operations without which success cannot be achieved? Are we certain that the bombing is not developing its own momentum, as we have seen too often in the past? The point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
Is there effective co-ordination between the military and humanitarian operations? It is difficult to over-estimate the horror of what may lie ahead for all the refugees, the displaced people and those who will be in a desperate plight as the winter overtakes us. I say candidly that I have never yet heard a convincing answer that there is the closest possible co-ordination between those master-minding the humanitarian operation and those master-minding the military operation.
Military action in itself will not bring stability or a solution. We must work at the politics. Is there convincing and close co-operation, therefore, between
32
those working on the political solution and those responsible for the military operation? What elements and political groupings does the coalition believe will have to be involved in a future government of Afghanistan; and how does it see that government being established with real roots and authority in Afghanistan, as distinct from being imposed from outside—a certain recipe for failure? What does the coalition see as the role of the Northern Alliance? And what of the Taliban itself? Are there elements in the Taliban who could be involved in a political solution?
What is the role of the United Nations? We talk about our commitment to the UN and the role that it must play; but what exactly do we see as its role, both on the political front and on the humanitarian front? We are extremely fortunate to have Mr Brahimi leading the United Nations operation. But are we certain that the resources that it will need will be guaranteed, and that we shall not again land the United Nations with a task for which it is not properly resourced?
We know that the terrorists are trying to provoke. We know that they are trying to engender cynicism about what they want to demonstrate as the difference between our rhetoric and our actions. I repeat, therefore, that we must be very careful about the language that we use. I worry a little about the loose interchange between the phrases "bringing to justice" and "bringing justice to them". There is a big difference in the two concepts. What exactly do we mean? The world is watching closely to see how we acquit ourselves by the values and principles for which we say we are fighting.
Out there is a huge constituency of ambivalence. We should be foolish to underestimate the size of that constituency. It is not just the 1.3 billion people in the world who are living in dire poverty; it is the highly intelligent, well educated, young, up-and-coming people in many of the excluded countries who feel angry with a world which they believe is being run by a small minority of nations. If we are to win the battle for hearts and minds, we must address that issue. It is not merely a question of the redistribution of wealth or of social justice in the terms in which we normally use the phrase. It is also a matter of the redistribution of political power in the world. These points must be addressed.
If we are to find a solution, the Middle East crisis is highly relevant. I am glad that reference has been made to that. People want to see justice for the Palestinians. Of course there is also anxiety among many intelligent people in the countries to which I have referred about some of the regimes with which we are collaborating. How do we reconcile that with our principles? Are those regimes not themselves living on borrowed time? Can they be sustained into the future? We have big questions to face in the long-term approach.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for mentioning this issue at the end of my remarks. New negotiations on world trade are about to start in Doha in Qatar. I am sometimes a little surprised that Ministers sound hurt at the suggestion that in those talks they will not be

33
concerned for the poor of the world. That is not the point. The point is that many articulate people in the countries which represent the poor of the world want the agenda to which they have to respond to be their agenda and not that of someone else. In that context, are we tackling the redistribution of power? If we are to win the fight to which we are committed, all these issues are highly relevant to the constituency of ambivalence and to winning the battle for hearts and minds.
I have referred to this issue in the House previously; I apologise for mentioning it again. Over the past two years I have visited Chechnya on a number of occasions. I have seen for myself the abuse of human rights. I have seen the indiscriminate bombardment. I have seen the disproportionate action; and I feel deeply disturbed by that in terms of everything we stand for in the Council of Europe and beyond. One matter which has always upset me most is counter-productivity: that instead of winning the battle for hearts and minds, people are being driven into the arms of the extremists who arc determined to exploit the situation. Whatever we do in this campaign, we must not give the terrorists the victory they seek by driving people into the their arms by a failure to discriminate, to see the nuances, and to play the subtleties which may be the most challenging of all the issues.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Jones: My Lords, I offer sincere thanks to all parts of the House for the kindness and thoughtfulness shown to me. I couple my gratitude to your Lordships with appreciation for the help given to me by members of the staff.
I believe that we must constantly remind ourselves of the atrocities committed on 11th September. They were merciless. But it is encouraging that the House, on all sides, has a unity of purpose. For my part, partnership with the United States is paramount. When my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal stood at the Dispatch Box on 8th October he referred to the United States. He used the phrase,
"She has been … for all of us the shining city on a hill".—[Official Report, 8/10/01; col. 286.]
He said it with undoubted feeling—if I may say so, like a Welshman—and I for one took his point. Britain's relationship with the United States is a special one. I once visited the World War II memorial to the United States fallen at Madingley in Cambridgeshire. On a vast, apparently never-ending wall, there are thousands and thousands of names of those United States servicemen and women who gave their lives. They washed the shores and skies and fields of Europe with their blood. British parliamentary democracy survived, thanks to the United States.
I am reassured that today a British Prime Minister and a United States President are united in facing up to an unprecedented and evil challenge. That does not mean that any of us should forget the misery of the hungry and the frightened in much-troubled Afghanistan. I was glad to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on humanitarian aid.
34
Secondly, the extent to which intelligence informs British foreign policy has surprised me. I say that in the context of previous membership of the Prime Minister's Intelligence and Security Committee of which I, like other noble Lords, was an original member. Ahead of that membership it was my role to chair the Standing Committee which legislated the Intelligence and Security Committee into being.
With that background, I wish to say a few cautious words on intelligence. It may not have escaped your Lordships' notice that The Times ("The Thunderer") devoted a first leader to intelligence matters after the atrocities of 11th September. It was, I thought, tart and a shade unjust. In my opinion the British intelligence agencies are good although by no means infallible. They are increasingly accountable. They are no longer inward looking. They are highly disciplined. They are well led. They have been successful. Perhaps they now need increased funding and increased recruitment. I believe that the agencies are highly professional.
Perhaps I may make a brief digression from intelligence matters. One of the nicest groups in the Palace of Westminster is the All-Party Parliamentary Cricket Group. Our dinners are congenial but we all miss Lord Colin Cowdrey, a peerless strokemaker and, noble Lords may agree, a natural gentleman. At one of our dinners the guest was the Yorkshireman (perhaps a professional Yorkshireman), the umpire Dickie Bird. He said that if he had to choose a batsman to bat for his life he would choose Geoffrey Boycott. That is a fair judgment. However, perhaps I may say that one could do far worse than choose a current director of the Security Service or the SIS to bat for one's life on these issues in these challenging times.
Last month at the Guards Chapel the memorial service was held of the previous SIS director. Sir David Spedding—"C" as he was known—was a brave and successful leader of the SIS. No finer tribute was paid that day than the sight of the King of Jordan walking down the nave with Sir David's family. I saw that reported in The Times newspaper. But in the Guards Chapel I also heard the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Inge, deliver his address in honour of Sir David. It is a truism that secret services sit uneasily alongside parliamentary democracies. But the counter argument is brutally simple. It is in two words: 11th September.
Thirdly, I have quoted the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. Perhaps I may refer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. I have returned many times to his thoughtful speech in a similar debate on 4th October. He said in it that he would speak, "with candour, honesty and compassion". He did all three. He spoke from the heart. His impressions and his conclusions concentrated the mind. He described a bewildering problem. My own prescription is that we must redouble our efforts on behalf of the substantial numbers of school-leavers who leave without a fistful of certificates. While I am proud of the New Deal and the efforts of Her Majesty's Government in this sphere, I have concluded that we must do even better, so as to try to lesson the tensions and the divisions in our cities. This seems to me to be an urgent agenda.

35
Lastly, my hope is that every British serviceman shall return safe and successful from any service that they are asked to give in Afghanistan, because this service could be a fearfully difficult task. I think that we undervalue our British servicemen and women. I think, for example, of their brave, professional and disciplined service in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years. Could any other professional army have coped so well over so many years, taken their casualties so bravely, and emerged with so few blemishes and with so much credit over so long a period of time? I truly think that the profession of soldiering is a most honourable profession.
I would conclude by saying that, after their contribution in Afghanistan, I want our soldiers to return home unhurt, successful and with honour.
4.42 pm
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Jones, on his excellent maiden speech. It is just over 30 years since he first represented in another place what was then Flint East. His considerable wisdom, knowledge and experience, not only of Wales but also of security and intelligence, will be of great benefit to this House. He also today has spoken from the heart, and we look forward very much indeed to hearing his further contributions to our debates in this House.
In utterly supporting the Government in their prosecution of terrorism, I want to refer to two disturbing consequences of the current campaign. I want first to underline the grave concerns that have already been expressed in this House about the escalation of anti-Christian violence since the campaign began, which has been exacerbated by the recent statement against Christians by bin Laden.
The situation is getting worse. One of our Anglican bishops in Nigeria wrote last week,
"When the West has problems with the Arab or Muslim world, the Christians in Nigeria and elsewhere bear the brunt. We are being slaughtered for being Christians and for being, as we are told, collaborators with the West".
In Indonesia, the Lasa-jihad, with close links to bin Laden, have escalated anti-Christian violence there in the last month, in the wake of many Christian deaths earlier in the year.
In the Sudan, in the very week it joined the US coalition and the West was thereby perceived there to be supporting the Muslims in the north, the local bombing of Christians by Muslims increased.
In Pakistan the massacre of Christians was, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has said, frightful. It highlights their vulnerability in a country where my diocese has a link with Christians in Faisalabad, whose bishop was at the funeral of those massacred. He reports that many Muslims stood there with them in support. It is true that the President of Pakistan had made efforts to protect Christian congregations before the murders, but he has still not altered the blasphemy
36
law as he promised to do. Meanwhile, as Bishop Malik of Lahore tells me, a growing number of Pakistanis now jeer at Christians for being, "lackeys of the West".
All the evidence seems to suggest that the longer the bombing of Afghanistan goes on—and I state this simply as a fact—the more Christians will be attacked, made homeless, their churches burned, and men, women and children killed.
In Israel, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem and the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church report that, as the conflict in Afghanistan develops, Christians there in that Holy Land are in growing danger, from all sides, of further attacks and of being killed.
I would welcome an assurance today from our Government that they are fully aware of this persecution of Christian minorities and that it has increased alarmingly in these past weeks, and that our Government are pressing strongly for all countries to abide by Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which enjoins countries to uphold the religious liberties of minorities, of whatever faith. I wonder if the Government have given thought to the proposals that have been made elsewhere in the past week by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for appropriate legislation in this country to establish an equivalent to the US Religious Freedom Commission, to monitor violations of religious liberty across the world.
The decision to mount a counter-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan was regarded by most Christian leaders as fulfilling the jus ad bellum—the justice of going to war. As the campaign has developed, however, it is the other aspect of that idea, namely jus in bello—the conduct within war—that is now causing some concern. The moral argument here is that action should not aim to work through the deaths of non-combatants and that, when such deaths do occur collaterally, they should not be on a scale disproportionate to the military effect properly sought. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has touched on this point with clarity and with precise questions, which I hope will be answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in her winding-up speech.
In earlier debates speakers from these Benches have indicated the complexity of bringing traditional just war ideas to bear on modern counter-terrorist campaigns, but in fact Western efforts seem largely to have fallen back on traditional military methods, rather than those commonly associated with counter-terrorism.
As the incoming honorary chaplain to the Royal British Legion, I am very aware that the lives of our own forces in that area are likely to come under increasing risk. The son of one of my clergy is among them: ready, if required, to give his life in the service of justice, peace and freedom. The noble Lord, Lord King, in his excellent maiden speech referred to Jellalabad and reminded me of happy days when I was Bishop of Taunton and knew both him and the said barracks. It is a reminder, as he said, of some of the sacrifices which our troops often have to face.

37
Obviously, in the proper questions and concerns now being raised about the consequences that are arising from the particular way of conducting this conflict, we must take care to avoid undermining the morale of our troops. But I do not believe that should stop us from voicing the gravest disquiet, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has done, about the growing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. It is appalling. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the civilians there have already suffered under the evil and cruel Taliban regime. One wonders whether the Northern Alliance will be any better. Indeed, there is the huge problem to face of bringing together 50 different tribal groups in some kind of political solution.
Christian Aid's recent submission to the International Development Select Committee argues, with persuasive evidence, that the military campaign has tragically added unnecessarily to civilian suffering. It has impeded aid flows and contributed to a huge refugee crisis. That piling on of added suffering is in danger of undermining the efficacy of the military campaign. For as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has indicated, it is always important not to lose the moral high ground.
The vast majority of Christian leaders in this country are in agreement with the Archbishop of Canterbury in his determination that this conflict must not be seen as Muslim versus Christian or East versus West, in spite of the violence that I described earlier, and in his backing for the original purpose for which the Government committed this country; namely, to bring bin Laden to justice and to counter terrorism. But any government need always to be warned, and not least from these Benches, that the just war thinking which helps to shape the support of the Churches lies in setting parameters to the national and international debate within which legitimate questions can be asked and governments held accountable.
In the case of this campaign we are being asked to take a great deal on trust. I hope that in furthering what are just and legitimate aims through diplomacy and military force the Government will be sensitive to the huge humanitarian concerns that are being expressed not only by the Churches. For what is immediately required is an effective humanitarian strategy in Afghanistan which goes far beyond American food parcels of peanut butter whose yellow wrappers can so easily be confused with the similar colour of some unexploded bombs. Christian aid agencies tell us that such actions have diverted attention from the co-ordinated strategy that is desperately needed and have undermined the allies' stated policy that humanitarian action is a critical component of a wider moral response. The coming winter weather means that it is very urgent that an average of at least 3,500 metric tonnes of food aid is available to Afghans each day, and that will require effective delivery and distribution networks which are not currently in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will, I hope, tell us what the Government are doing to follow their obligations under Article 23 of the Geneva Convention 4 (civilian section). This is an unfolding
38
human tragedy on a vast scale. Many thousands, without such aid, will die this winter and among them there will be many tiny children. The message that many people across the world will take from that is that the lives of innocent people in this poorest of countries are deemed to be expendable on our behalf. Has history not taught us the inevitable results of treating people in that way? Enforced poverty and despair are seedbeds for anger, revenge and yet further terrorism.
We are told that in America since 11th September people have asked, "Why do people hate us so much?" It is a pertinent question that all of us in the richest parts of the world need to ask ourselves. For the truth is that if the further globalisation of terrorism is to be curtailed it will not in the long term be achieved by bombs or even by emergency food aid. When we have brought bin Laden to justice and begun to contain terrorism more effectively we shall have to address far more seriously than we have ever done before the redistribution of political power across the world and the inequality and poverty that are the curse of our world. That is the real evil to be overcome.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. I welcome another opportunity to range over the problems that we all face following the tragedies in the United States on 11th September. I am, along with millions of others, a strong supporter of the need to bear down on terrorism. But, like those other "isms", communism and fascism, terrorism is a formidable opponent. Its containment and ultimate destruction is a job for years, even decades, not a short, sharp campaign that the media might prefer in order to dramatise their coverage.
The title of the Motion—to take note of the situation in Afghanistan—misleads, obscuring the immediate objective spelt out on both sides of the Atlantic to bring Osama bin Laden to account and to eliminate the threat from Al'Qaeda. Events in Afghanistan are but way-points on the road to those objectives—a means to an end. Happily, what the Minister said covered the wider canvass.
Nevertheless we invert our objectives by concentrating on the situation in Afghanistan. We think mainly of four slogging weeks of air attacks launched to achieve air supremacy. The phrase "air supremacy" is both descriptive and indicative It is descriptive because Taliban air power, what there was of it, has ceased to exist or pose a threat to coalition aircraft at medium or high level over Afghanistan. But air supremacy is not an end in itself; it is an indicative foretaster for the next stage, joint force operations. Statements that the air assault will not be paused for Ramadan imply that it remains an essential ingredient in the war strategy and that we are in for the long haul.
Public perception of what is meant by air supremacy may be imprecise, but their media-gleaned understanding of the price of achieving it is not. It includes the shattered hospital or Red Cross store,

39
interruptions of critical aid, killed and mutilated Afghan civilians who are not our enemy and condemnation of collateral damage and carpet bombing. The media's graphic, clear pictures and reportage from the front line by digital quality cameras and video link telephone blazon the story night after night on the world's television screens.
Contrast all that with the stolid delivery at Pentagon briefs, the fuzzy cockpit images of laser-guided weapons and a mushrooming cloud of dust where the crosshairs marked the target. All look much the same—inferior in quality to video game imitations of the real thing. Few military briefings carry the message as well as General Norman Schwarzkopf's in the Gulf War, when he showed a video clip of a river bridge in Baghdad with just a single small car crossing it. The spans behind the car were being blasted to smithereens. "See the luckiest man in Iraq today", said Norman Schwarzkopf. "Guess he'd have more than a lump in his throat if he checked his rear-view mirror". The message that bridges were being cut came across well. Presentation is very important.
Our focus should not be on Afghanistan alone. The Minister addressed other key strands of action and strategic objectives, including the maintenance of pressure other than military on the terrorists and their state sponsors. That involves financial, diplomatic and political measures that reach far beyond Afghanistan. Are we doing any better freezing suspect bank accounts? The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House mentioned a mere £63 million on 4th October, which, he said,
"hardly begins to scratch the surface".—[Official Report, 4/10/01; col.111.]
I hope that we are doing better.
The first principle of war is selection and maintenance of the aim. Let us remind the public more eloquently and more frequently of the aim. By deed and action, the Prime Minister is doing that, but he is still too far out on his own. Others who support him must find ways that fire up media interest and coverage. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, in his fine maiden speech, rightly stressed the importance of good communication.
The reference to Afghanistan in the Motion takes our eye off the thrust of our overall aim. It is doubly unfortunate because of the unintended inference that some will take that we have a quarrel with the people of Afghanistan. Of course, as has been said many times, that is not so, but those who wish to spin against the coalition suggest that the assault on Afghanistan is deliberately anti-Muslim and that the aim is not really to oust the Taliban, but to protect western oil interests and our all too comfortable way of life while others starve and live in poverty. Even greater thought is required about how to express ourselves and how to avoid our behaviour alienating others.
Getting to bin Laden in Afghanistan is a tough call. Dictators and rulers such as Saddam Hussein and the Taliban lust after power and do not readily succumb even to heavy and sustained bombardment. The
40
German people, cowed by the Nazi regime, did not in World War II, and they were bombarded far more heavily than the poor Afghans and were losing massive assets and infrastructure for months and years. Incidentally, most serious historians refute the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the bombing in World War II was too prolonged to achieve the objective of unconditional surrender.
Internal revolution and assassinations, or overwhelming force of arms, are necessary to oust such terrible regimes. Even then, military force will not succeed if we back off too soon. We did that in Iraq in 1991 for the best of reasons, but sweet reason may not deliver the objective. It did not then.
Can we snatch bin Laden with special forces? We had tough experiences with special forces in the Gulf War. Worried about Iraqi Scud missile attacks on Israel, we sent special forces helicopters and ground troops deep into Iraq. Stories such as Bravo Two Zero have since dramatised the difficulties of getting at Scud communications and their mobile launchers over inhospitable territory. Bin Laden is much smaller and a great deal nimbler on his feet than any Scud launcher. He will be an even more difficult special forces target. I hope that we are getting good intelligence on his whereabouts.
If the coalition is to be taken seriously, it must also be seen to be preparing for more major operations on the ground to boot the Taliban out and then to close on bin Laden and his associates, assuming—this is a major assumption—that they remain in Afghanistan and do not further compound the difficulties of bringing him to book by moving elsewhere.
Countries with a common land border are bonded by diffuse ties far into the future. No matter how much they may quarrel today, their border areas embrace a host of relationships and cultural ties, trade and other activities. Such considerations—we saw their impact on Jordan in the Gulf War—need thought in our own planning. So, too, does the international growth of Muslim solidarity. The reluctance of Afghanistan's neighbours to provide operating bases for coalition aircraft and troops to launch attacks against Afghanistan reflects these concerns. What we might think is a reasonable request may not be welcomed because, following a conflict, it could be a cause of long-term regional friction. Yet without well-found basing in the area of conflict, military operations on any large scale far from home bases become even more difficult.
That is the stark Catch-22 for the coalition. A firm base within Afghanistan may have to be set up, but a force on the ground there will not be given an easy ride by the Taliban, and maybe other Afghan factions, if they were persuaded that their country and religion, not the terrorists, were under assault.
Meanwhile, let us have confidence that those who are planning and directing the fight against terrorism are giving all these issues and all the others due weight. We must give them our full support and understanding of the very difficult task that they face. As our

41
servicemen and women become more and more involved, we wish them well and the operations that they embark on every success.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater on his immensely persuasive, cogent and expert maiden speech and to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, on his eloquent contribution.
Suitably intimidated by the amount of military expertise that has already been vouchsafed to the House by two former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, my noble friend Lord King and both Front Benches, I shall not venture into the military aspects, but shall stick to the coalition aspects. I declare an interest in that I am president of a Palestinian medical charity.
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said that there were some people here sitting in their armchairs who were critical. I fear that that is true, but there are far more people in the Middle East—with armchairs or not—who are critical. They have considerable worries about what is going on. That is why the Prime Minister was entirely right to go on his extremely tricky tour of the Middle East last week. It is vital that we persuade the people living in the area that our cause is just; otherwise, the coalition will fall apart. That persuasion is a distinctly uphill task because there is widespread hostility in the Middle East towards the United States.
Last month, President Bush told journalists that there was "vitriolic hatred for America". He could not believe it, he continued, because,
"I know how good we are".
That just shows how out of touch he was with both events and opinion in the Middle East. The Arab and Muslim world has seen America claiming to be an honest broker in the Middle East conflict, whereas, in fact, for nearly the whole time it has been almost entirely committed to one side. For that reason, again, I very much welcome the insistence of the Prime Minister last week and previously that, if there is to be peace in the area, there must be a viable Palestinian state. He stressed the word "viable" as opposed to the clutch of Bantustans which is all that Israel has previously offered to the Palestinians.
As was said by a distinguished American columnist, William Pfaff, mentioned earlier in a different context by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire:
"For more than 30 years the United States has refused to make a genuinely impartial effort to find a resolution to the [Israel-Palestinian] conflict".
Putting it mildly, that is true. I am afraid that the reason is that, for most of the time, America has regarded the Middle East issue as a plaything of American politics. The issues and the very important merits of the case have been largely ignored. Most American politicians have concentrated on the more congenial task of obtaining votes and money from the pro-Israeli lobbies in America. That has, rather painfully, shown the corruption of American politics and, of course, has made a deeply bad impression in the Middle East.
42
That subordination of American policy to interests at home has been particularly disastrous in relation to the building of Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied territories. As your Lordships know, the 1967 borders give Israel 78 per cent of Palestine, which I believe most people would consider to be a fairly generous proportion. However, not content with that, Israel has concentrated on extending its population into land that does not belong to it.
One would have thought that if anyone were to be settled in the occupied territories, elementary decency would demand that it should be some of the Palestinians who were driven out in 1948. That has not happened, and what even a very committed pro-American columnist, Thomas Friedman, calls "Israel's greedy provocative settlements' have continued to be made. Of course, America receives much of the blame for that because, to a large extent through its massive aid to Israel, America is paying for them. It is certainly making it possible for them to happen. We saw the great row that occurred when the earlier President Bush was in power. All those settlements are being built on stolen Palestinian land in contravention of international law.
Even more astonishingly, those settlements have continued—indeed, they have increased in speed— since the Oslo agreement, which, after all, was meant to bring about the transfer of land occupied by, but not belonging to, Israel in exchange for peace. Instead, Israel continued to take more and more land.
All that must stop if the coalition is to be preserved. There are many civilised voices in Israel which entirely agree with that view. They want Israel to have peace and security; they do not like the settlers and they do not like the settlements. Israel's most distinguished military commentator, Ze'ev Schiff, had this to say on the matter in Ha'aretz on 11th May. He wrote that all excuses made by successive Israeli governments to justify expanding the settlements were,
"absurd because everyone knew there was only one interpretation … to close off the option of the Palestinians being able to establish a viable state. Israel has created a situation",
he went on,
"that has left the Palestinians with no other choice but to wage an armed struggle against Israel".
Those are the words of an Israeli military commentator, not a Palestinian or anyone else. What he says seems to me to be pretty conclusive.
Yet—this again has a strong bearing on the coalition—almost incredibly, the creation of new settlements is still going on. At least 20 have been started since Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister. He must know perfectly well that Israel's continued illegal colonising of the West Bank and Gaza was the main cause of the start of the intifada and the main cause of its continuance. But then, of course, as another American columnist, Jackson Diehl, recently wrote in the Washington Post, Mr Sharon does not,
"want a political settlement … He dreams of destroying the Palestinian Authority, an act that would allow him to begin imposing his own long cherished vision of a West Bank dominated Mated by a grid of Israeli territorial holdings with the Palestinians squeezed into weak, disconnected cantons".

43
Of course, all that has provoked violence, and Mr Sharon pretends that all Palestinian violence is terrorism. He has even compared Mr Arafat to bin Laden. That shows a considerable knack of being able to forget both Mr Sharon's own past and that of his country. After all, as Professor Sir Michael Howard reminded us last week, Israel was founded on terrorism, first, against this country and, secondly, against the Palestinians.
Moreover, almost uniquely, Israel has had two Prime Ministers who have been ex-terrorists. That now brings us to the present incumbent. To call Mr Sharon a terrorist is almost a compliment. He is certainly that, as his policy of assassinations and earlier massacres show. However, he is also, as the highly respected academic, David Cesarani, a moderate Zionist and the Professor of Jewish history at Southampton University, wrote in the Independent,
"a war criminal and head of the most right-wing government in Israeli history pursuing murderous policies against Palestinians".
Unfortunately, that was allowed to go on during the first bad nine months of the Bush Administration without any criticism from anyone in the United States. That has done America damage and is now weakening the coalition.
Of course, Mr Sharon is right to some extent. There has been Palestinian terrorism. In my view, all Palestinian violence in Israel proper is terrorism, and the suicide bombings have been particularly dreadful and quite inexcusable atrocities. However, the violence in the occupied territories is not terrorism. There the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a particularly brutal occupation. Anyone in your Lordships' House who has seen that occupation will not disagree that it is undoubtedly a very brutal one. It is that which has fuelled the hatred of America in the Middle East. Unless it is brought to an end now, it will seriously endanger the fabric of the coalition against terrorism.
Belatedly, but nevertheless very welcome, there have been signs of a change in Washington. A few days ago William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, criticised the Israelis' settlement activity. He said that it destroys Palestinian hope and drives more Palestinians into the hands of the extremists. He also held Israel accountable for dehumanising the Palestinians. For even those very mild words he was heavily criticised.
The Prime Minister will no doubt again emphasise in Washington next week the need for a Palestinian state and the paramount importance of ending settlements and of introducing a ceasefire. As the Ha'aretz diplomatic correspondence pointed out on Friday, Mr Sharon's policy is currently to say that he will have no talks about a ceasefire until a ceasefire has already been respected by the Palestinians but not by the Israelis. That is totally non-viable. He must be told that he must agree to a ceasefire, after which the Mitchell proposals must be brought into action. That would be done very belatedly but it is still very important.
44
There must be concerted international action in Israel and Palestine. The machinery is already there—it is called the Quartet and it consists of an American representative, a Russian representative, a UN representative and an EU representative. That Quartet can be extremely important and should be given every support. It should work very hard—otherwise, if the Israeli-Palestinian problem is not solved fairly quickly, that problem will strike at the roots of the coalition.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, with immense interest and almost total agreement. The core of the trouble in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the fact that most of the blame lies with Israel's conduct; there is no question about that. The noble Lord did us a service by bringing the whole matter out in the open in detail, for which I thank him. I was going to say something about the subject but, after his speech, there is no need to do so.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord King, highlighted one of the most important matters; namely, the need for intelligence. We have ignored what can happen in the modern world. For years we have known that a lorry tip up in the middle of a road can cause the most appalling build-up of traffic; thousands of hours of work are lost and great extra expense is caused to the country merely as the result of a simple tip up. It was only when we saw the appalling tragedy in the United States—which was engineered, masterminded and carried out by disciples of bin Laden—that we realised how fragile the whole of modern society is against the threat of a terrorist organisation, particularly if it has young zealots who are prepared to die in the service of their appalling ideas.
We were warned—I have said this in a previous speech—by Lord Cheshire. In his maiden speech 13 years ago, he detailed a case that was very similar to the happenings in America and the twin towers tragedy. Lord Cheshire was one of the great heroes of Bomber Command—this country has reason to be grateful to that body. When we examine the situation today, there is no doubt about the fact that we have got to bring the Taliban down and bin Laden and his associates to justice, whatever that justice might be.
I pay tribute to the Government—I am wholly in agreement with what they are doing—and think extremely well of the Prime Minister for the work that he is doing and the way in which he is doing it. He is doing a tremendous task and we should be thankful that he is devoting so much of his energy and time to the matter.
I was pleased that the Minister mentioned the necessity of establishing an aerodrome of a reasonable size and capability in Afghanistan. That must be the first objective. I hope that it is pursued with all vigour and with the proper equipment, and that that is done quickly. It is unfortunately true that it is not always good will and good intentions that influence people. If we have a series of successes in Afghanistan against the

45
Taliban, that will influence many other countries. If the Taliban gets away with this, we shall have nothing but trouble.
I am pleased with the Government—I am sure that that will be a great joy to them—and with the Prime Minister. I hope that they will pursue this matter with all energy. It will be the crux of the organisation that other noble Lords have discussed. Noble Lords have discussed humanitarian aid. The first thing to do is to win the battle in Afghanistan against the Taliban and bin Laden and his associates. Too much hesitation, set back and so on will be a triumph for the terrorists. We do not want that, and the Government must pursue vigorously the policy that they are following.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it was good that the Prime Minister last week made such a forthright and clear speech, in which he reminded us of the tragic and repugnant course of events that led to the need for military action in Afghanistan. The steady drip, drip, drip of scepticism and speculation that we are all fed by the 24-hours-a-day media industry were beginning to take their toll. That is an unavoidable burden that every modern democracy has to bear when it goes to war. It is not one that weighs greatly on the mind of Osama bin Laden or the Taliban, but it underlines the importance of continually updating and repeating the objectives that the coalition against terrorism is pursuing and of matching them to unfolding developments on the ground.
One of the problems with doing that is the difficulty of putting time-scales on basically rather unpredictable developments and the fact that we are faced with two completely different time-scales: one for the wider war against terrorism and the other for the action that is being taken in Afghanistan. On the wider war—that involves the measures to protect ourselves better, the steps needed to track down and bring to justice all those who had a hand in the crime of 11th September and the controls needed to deny terrorists safe havens and access to finance and weapons, which they have hitherto enjoyed—the only honest answer must be that it will last a very long and probably indefinite period of time. We are not going to eliminate global terrorism and be sure that we have done so in a matter of months, a year or even two years. As with peace, the price that we will have to pay will be eternal vigilance. Government leaders are right to warn us that we are in for the long haul. Unfortunately, those warnings tend to be transposed to the situation in Afghanistan, where rather different time factors apply.
In Afghanistan, too, it is not possible to predict with any precision how long the military operations will last, and it must therefore be most unwise to try to do so. The objectives are reasonably clear: bringing to hook Osama bin Laden and his associates; the destruction of the terrorist training camps and the network that they fed; and the installation in Kabul of a government who, unlike the present Taliban regime—which, incidentally, is no longer recognised by anyone as the legally constituted government of
46
Afghanistan—are ready to comply with international obligations in the war against terrorism. The how and the when are difficult to predict, but certainly less—much less—time than the wider war will require. Patience and persistence will get us to our goals a good deal quicker than spurious predictions.
No task in a campaign of this kind is more difficult than keeping the military and the political objectives in harmony and in sharp focus. The political objectives on which I shall concentrate are a great deal easier to state than they are to achieve.
First, there is the aim of constituting a broad-based and representative government of Afghanistan ready to accept and to implement their international obligations and to start the task of bringing the country back from the ravages of war. That objective appears to be broadly agreed by all concerned. If such a government are to have any chance of achieving stability, they must be a genuinely representative government, one that represents all the main ethnic groups.
Beyond that I believe that we should not be too prescriptive. We should avoid cramping the style of the UN Secretary-General's special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, whose task is to bring such a government into being. It is evident that the principal Pashtun tribes, who make up 40 per cent or more of the population, will have to play an important role. Let us try to avoid becoming bogged down in endless discussion of whether some elements that have hitherto supported the Taliban regime may one day play a part in that.
We must be clear that our objective is to bring about a government of Afghanistan composed of Afghans. Of course, in the early stages, such a government will require massive underpinning from outside, probably under the aegis of the UN. That support will need to be provided in a manner that is flexible and sensitive to Afghanistan's strong belief in its own independence. Let us try to avoid landing ourselves in a struggle against Afghan nationalism as well as against religious extremists.
Secondly, there is the need for a massive programme of economic relief and reconstruction. The humanitarian programme is clearly operating under great difficulties, although the commitment of external resources does not appear to be one of them. Surely, we now need maximum effective co-ordination between the coalition allies, the UN agencies and the non-governmental organisations to ensure that supplies get through by airdrop if necessary. I agree with what the Minister said in opening the debate. Instead of a war of words over bombing pauses, which would probably not make the delivery of aid in a series of war zones—war zones not imposed by the coalition bombing campaign but by the state of affairs in Afghanistan between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban—a great deal easier, we need a sustained effort to help both the refugees and those suffering from want in Afghanistan.
Beyond that, does it not make sense to outline the kind of programmes and resources for reconstruction that the international community would put at the

47
disposal of a broad-based government, once one comes into being? Of course, in a post-Taliban situation, that would require adjustment, but providing a prospectus now could act as a powerful incentive to all concerned to work towards the agreed objective.
Thirdly, I suggest that we should start to work up an international legal framework for a post-Taliban Afghanistan that would protect it against meddling from outside and that would commit it not to interfere in the affairs of its neighbours, as it did for a number of years with the ill-fated Pashtunistan adventure. I was heartened to see that the Pakistani foreign minister, Mr Abdul Sattar, spoke along those lines last week. If Pakistan, which has both meddled and been meddled with in the past, can contemplate such an approach, that will be a major step forward. After all, in the case of Cambodia the international community finally applied a similar approach, with reasonable success, but far too late.
If those three broad, political objectives are to be pursued, roughly along the lines that I have suggested, how can we ensure that they are visible to all and not obscured by the smoke of battle and the fog of propaganda? One way to proceed would be for the United Nations Security Council to endorse them in a suitably broad and flexible framework resolution. One would need to be sure that the Secretary-General and his special representative would welcome such an initiative. If they did, that could strengthen their hand as well as dissipating many suspicions about the true objectives being pursued by the coalition against terrorism.
However, none of those political objectives will be easily obtainable if the great coalition against terrorism cannot be held together. It would be idle to ignore the stresses and strains that the action against Afghanistan has occasioned. Equally, it would be idle to ignore the fact that the continuing bloodshed in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority's territories is a fundamental source of weakness to the coalition. It needs to be remedied, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, has said more eloquently than I.
If one says, as the Israeli government say, that one will not withdraw one's troops or sit down at the negotiating table until there is perfect tranquillity, what on earth can one expect from terrorist groups who, for tactical reasons, do not want a withdrawal and do not want to see meaningful negotiations taking place? How much would our own Government have achieved in Northern Ireland if we had allowed groups like the Real IRA to dictate the agenda and to determine when the next step forward would or would not be made? As time passes, the case for a fully committed re-engagement of the United States, the European Union and Russia to get a peace process on the rails again becomes ever stronger.
In that context I warmly welcome the major high-level effort being made by the Prime Minister in his visit to the region last week and his visit to Washington this week. Middle East peace brokering is not for the faint-hearted, nor for those who lack patience and
48
ingenuity. I have the impression that the Prime Minister does not fall into any of those categories. For Britain, as a leading member of the European Union, to check and to reverse a deteriorating situation in the Middle East must surely be right and expedient.
No one who has known Afghanistan as I have, can have watched the developments of the past few weeks without a good deal of anguish. The Afghans may have displayed a certain fecklessness in their handling of their affairs, but most of their misfortunes have been foisted on them by others, most recently by Osama bin Laden, who has so ruthlessly exploited their hospitality and dragged them into the present predicament. Once this chapter is closed, the least we owe them is our support in bringing about a better future for a country that has suffered so much.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am glad that we have this further opportunity to debate the situation in Afghanistan. I have not spoken in previous debates, but I have followed developments closely. It is important that debate should take place and that Members of this House should be able to express their views frankly. I commend the Government for their willingness to provide this opportunity for debate to take place.
Like everyone else, I was absolutely appalled by the events of 11th September. Whatever grievances may exist, nothing—absolutely nothing—can justify the murder of thousands of innocent people who were simply going about their ordinary business. It is the job of government, in so far as they can, to protect their citizens. Therefore, a response, if attacked, is legitimate and will be expected by the public and those who have suffered.
However, differences have arisen about the type of response that is appropriate. Afghanistan, of course, presents some specific and unique problems. I happen to hold what is probably a controversial, and certainly not very often expressed view, about the recent history of that country.
In earlier debates in this House I have said that intervention does not always produce the expected or even the desired result. That is true of past western intervention in Afghanistan. Recently, much has been said about the position of women under Taliban rule. When the regime described as pro-Soviet was in power, women had access to education, to health services, to child care and to work and they were able to participate fully in public life and many of them did so. I recall that during that period one of my trade union colleagues was a member of a delegation to Afghanistan which looked specifically at women's rights. She came back with a report indicating that those rights had been considerably enhanced and that women were playing a substantial role in the process.
United States policy at that time regarded any pro-Soviet regime as something to be undermined and, if possible, overthrown. There is some evidence that insurgent groupings received assistance from the West prior to the Soviet incursion, which took place at the

49
instance of the then government of that country. The amount of assistance afforded to the insurgents became very substantial indeed. It would appear that Osama bin Laden was himself a beneficiary of that aid—becoming a kind of CIA operative.
The media in the West referred to the insurgents as freedom fighters. Some freedom. It was freedom for men cruelly to oppress women, to force them to become almost invisible, to stone them to death for minor offences. The rights that women had had were totally extinguished. It is a regime in which the public execution of women in a sports stadium has become a kind of afternoon spectacle. That is the kind of regime that emerged.
President Najibullah, before he was murdered publicly by the Taliban, gave an interview to a United States journalist in which he warned against what he called fundamentalism, saying that if it won in his country, Afghanistan would become a haven for drug dealers and a base for terrorists, and that this would also threaten the West. He was of course right.
It is possible that extreme fundamentalism would not have won had it not been for the active assistance received from the West in terms of money, weaponry, training and military assistance. That should be remembered when it is said that the Russians could not win because of the particular conditions in Afghanistan. They were not fighting simply the mujaheddin, who probably could not have won by themselves.
I should be happy to see the Taliban regime decisively defeated, although probably the country would need to be governed as a UN protectorate for some time to come. However, I have some concerns about the reliance on bombing. I have always opposed bombing—I did so over Kosovo, and I have also raised the matter of the bombing of Iraq on several occasions. I am old enough to know what sustained aerial bombardment is like for a civilian population. It is a terrifying experience, even if one survives. Accurate targeting is difficult. There is always collateral damage. In Kosovo, several thousand civilians were killed or injured and more than 1 million people were rendered homeless, yet the Serbian army escaped almost unscathed. The result in Kosovo was to exchange one kind of ethnic cleansing for another—this time conducted by murderous KLA gangs.
I am critical of bombing not on grounds of effectiveness, although there is a case to be made against it on those grounds, but because it is wrong. To use cluster bombs, as was done in Kosovo—at first denied—and now in Afghanistan, is probably a war crime, despite what my noble friend Lord Bach said this afternoon.
The aid agencies tell us that the bombing is making it much more difficult for much needed humanitarian aid to get through to several million people. If aid—food, in particular—does not reach people in the more rural and less accessible areas before the winter, there is likely to be a human catastrophe and millions may die. I also believe that the bombing campaign will make it more difficult to attract support for the
50
campaign against terrorism among moderate Muslims, many of whom have no love for the Taliban and who would be happy for it to disappear.
It may also make sustaining the coalition more difficult. The coalition is necessary if an international campaign against terrorism is to be maintained. That will depend on intelligence operations and international co-operation in order to track down what may be quite small cells operating in a range of countries. Of course, the Prime Minister is right to do everything possible to shore up the coalition, and in particular, to attempt to revive the peace process in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Judd said in that connection. The actions of the Prime Minister should be commended.
A continuous bombing campaign and the inevitable civilian casualties may result in strains on the coalition. I understand why the US Government, in the light of history—particularly in Vietnam—are anxious to rely on bombing and long-distance missile attacks. The US Government may fear that the public may turn against the conflict if body bags start coming back. The alternative to sending in limited ground forces, which is probably the only way in which the bin Laden organisation can effectively be dealt with, is to risk heavy civilian casualties. I believe that limited and targeted ground forces will be necessary, but the way in which the conflict is currently being conducted. with heavy reliance on air power, risks killing and Injuring innocent people who had nothing to do with the horrors of the 11th September and who have suffered already as a result of civil wars, drought and the general devastation that has afflicted that unfortunate country over the past 20 years.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the ground of the debate has already been covered be a series of authoritative speeches, including two magnificent maiden speeches. As the Government are supported, all that one can do to avoid repetition is to present a personal perspective, in which the impact of the 11th September and the aftermath may be seen. In doing so, I defer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who, with his diplomatic skills, has proposed a resolution with a constitution for a new form of government, which your Lordships may think warrants serious attention.
Before the winter sets in, our Armed Forces are to be further committed to occupy northern Afghanistan, to furnish a massive humanitarian relief operation. Thank heavens for that. But we shall be engaged in armed conflict in which no declaration of war has been made by any state—nor indeed shall be made. Afghanistan is the seat of Al'Qaeda, controlled by bin Laden and his associates, whose tentacles reach out worldwide. It is fed, fostered and protected by the Taliban, which is one of nine ethnic groups in Afghanistan, and which is not internationally recognised as the de facto government. It is much to be doubted whether military defeat of the Taliban on

51
Afghan soil would cause the Al'Qaeda structure to collapse. Indeed, the very success of the relief operation would stiffen its resolve.
In this phase of madness that appears to have engulfed the world, bin Laden represents no state. The Taliban is not a state. Al'Qaeda is a terrorist structure without the law. Bin Laden purports to speak for Islam, which he does not. He has declared what he calls a holy war, which assuredly it is not. It is being waged by those who believe in implementing his agenda as their agenda, contrary to the tenets of their faith. It is a form of attrition—it is not a war and there has been no declaration of war—against a multitude of unknown victims, including even Muslims in Islamic states. It is a form of madness which engulfs us.
Neither the Taliban nor Al'Qaeda is governed by international convention as to the conduct of hostilities, massacres, assassinations, demolitions or anything else they do; or, as regards the treatment of those taken prisoner in armed conflict. That novel form of global attrition shall continue for many years in many forms; anthrax in the USA is but an example. Moreover, the attacks of 11th September shall not be the last.
One must accept that the Al'Qaeda structure cannot be eliminated by resort to arms and without the help and approval of the international community. Such being the case, a kind of dilemma divides two imponderables imposed by bin Laden. Professor Sir Michael Howard has admonished:
"We must keep our nerve but it is no less important that we should keep our heads".
Armed operations against the Taliban must be pressed to a successful conclusion. We must win and retain broad support of the hearts and minds of Islam. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar are worthy of the serious attention of government.
However, if one is to keep one's head, one must distinguish between, first, military action to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and to provide massive human relief; secondly, offensive armed action and measures taken as protection by a state against this holy war; and, thirdly, steps taken to root out international terrorism as part of a long-term campaign in which diplomacy to retain support for the alliance, intelligence of which noble Lords have already spoken—for instance, Interpol, the police and the security forces—affords the only viable means of achievement within an entirely new dimension of reciprocal international law. That is a perspective as I see it. It is a difficult course to achieve, but is there any other means of success? It seems to me that the world must learn to reorder its own affairs in so many ways and beyond the confines of our debate on Afghanistan in order to redress the upheaval of 11th September and the aftermath.
I understand fully the repugnance to bombardment with the inevitable collateral damage. However, I do not understand, because I do not know, why cluster bombs are of vital consequence. If the noble and
52
gallant Lords or someone who really knew—it would not necessarily be the Minister—could say why cluster bombs were needed, I would accept it and that would be the end of the matter. However, no one seems to be able to say—and it will not disclose a great military secret—why a cluster bomb is very much more effective for the purpose of maintaining air superiority and achieving the military defeat of the Taliban. Why is the cluster bomb as such necessary? If I am told that it is necessary and that it is a strategic necessity to achieve a military aim taken in lawful self-defence to defeat the Taliban, to maintain air superiority, to debilitate the Taliban and further debilitate the Taliban before our troops go in on the ground, it was, is and should continue to be a lawful exercise in self-defence. I should like to have an assurance that the cluster bomb is a necessary military requirement.
As regards bringing bin Laden to justice, Professor Sir Michael Howard has warned of the global propaganda of a trial; that assassination would invoke martyrdom and the backlash of Islam; and that escape would engender the Robin Hood image. That is all very well, but if and when he is found in Afghanistan, what are we to do with him? What else other than secure custody at some remote place pending trial in an international court in the hope that that would enlist the will, support and help of the world for the destruction of Al'Qaeda? But would it? The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised that point. I do not know; that is yet another dilemma to come.
It is accepted that the United States of America has the dominant role. Albeit the Government have total support in Parliament, some questions none the less arise. I am grateful for the many debates that we have had, but ought not Parliament to consider whether the nature and extent of the involvement of our Armed Forces in these operations will attract or retain the support of the world community? Ought not Parliament to seek to ensure that the arena of armed operations of the alliance should be confined to Afghanistan to the exclusion of any other states, in particular Iraq?
Should not questions be raised and considered in Parliament, for example about the new government in Afghanistan? I only ask that this be considered. Although every serviceman shall do his duty, the question is: what is the duty which Parliament owes to every serviceman? As I understand it, that is the approach of the leader of my party. I suggest to your Lordships that that is not only right but requisite if we are to keep our heads.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I join other noble Lords who have strongly praised the leadership and understanding shown by the Prime Minister following the horrendous attack on America on 11th September. I say that not only because I am a strong supporter of the transatlantic link but, more importantly, because the attack showed all too clearly the very serious threat posed by international terrorism and its supporters and the complete disregard for the consequences of their actions. I believe that the Prime Minister was

53
absolutely right to make a difficult trip to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel and Jordan, but it was a very important part of building an understanding of the problems that we face.
Potentially, this is the greatest challenge that we have faced since the Second World War. I recognise that this debate is mainly about Afghanistan but, as many other noble Lords have said, it is part of a much wider problem. It is critically important that we continue to look at the threat posed by international terrorism in the global sense. To deal with the Taliban and the problem in Afghanistan will be difficult enough, but it is only part of the problem.
Having said that, planning, deciding and agreeing upon and carrying out the strategic, political—I stress that word—and military response will be very difficult, complex and dangerous, and there are bound to be hiccups on the way. Certainly, it will not be as tidy as some of the media have suggested and it will be very difficult to keep the public on side. We are not dealing with a nation state, although unfortunately key nations do support international terrorism. However, other states like Pakistan are now being enormously helpful.
We are trying to come to terms with an organisation that works in the shadows, does not care about the consequences of its actions, has cells in about 60 countries and has shown itself capable of executing very sophisticated and terrible attacks. Whether we like it or not, it has considerable support.
Although our immediate priority is Afghanistan, we must recognise that one man's terrorist remains another man's freedom fighter, to use a well-known and much used phrase. The key matter to recognize—the Schwerpunkt, to use a German expression—is to get at the cause of the support; namely, the fact that the Middle East peace process has not moved. I do not believe that until we have signs of a viable Palestinian state the cause for that support will be removed.
Although we have debated at some length today the military aspects of the campaign, we must recognise that there is no military solution to the problem. The military can help but it must be in support of a political initiative and effort. I believe that the lack of a viable Palestinian state is the best possible recruiting sergeant for the Al'Qaeda terrorist movement. The capture or death of bin Laden would be a major setback, but the cause would remain and others would fill his place.
We must understand why military action against Afghanistan is critical. Clearly, the Taliban support the Al'Qaeda movement and provide it with protection. But we must also recognise that to deal with the military situation in Afghanistan will not be easy. Perhaps we should not be surprised that the media look for quick results. I believe history shows us that to operate in Afghanistan given the enemy and the hostile and very rugged terrain may take a long time. We must remember that we shall be doing it a long way from home. To mount and sustain such operations will be difficult.
54
Understandably, a number of people have shown concern about the air campaign. In one's experience, targeting is always undertaken with enormous care, whether it be Bosnia, the Gulf War or Kosovo, but intelligence and targeting are never perfect. We must also recognise that the power of modern weapons is such that if there is a mistake the consequences are much greater. Sadly, innocent civilians will be killed. But if I was now giving advice about any future land operation in Afghanistan I would strongly support the air campaign. If we do not use the air campaign to diminish the Taliban capability we shall put our soldiers at greater risk. There is a good deal of talk about innocent civilians, but we shall be committing a lot of innocent soldiers to fight in Afghanistan and putting their lives at risk. We have a responsibility, therefore, to ensure that we make an extremely difficult and dangerous job as easy as possible. I also recognise that hand in hand with the military effort must go a hearts-and-mind campaign in the sense of both humanitarian and economic aid. It will be a much longer and more difficult campaign both in Afghanistan and beyond than many wish to recognise.
There are some other very important matters to consider, a number of which have already been touched upon. We must look at the priority given to the funding of such matters as intelligence. That was always very important, but understandably it has now become much more critical and will remain so. It is remarkable that on 11th September these terrorists were able to put into operation an attack which involved 23 people and kept it a secret as they did. Human intelligence is as important as ever. I recall that when I was commander-in-chief in Germany at the time the wall came down I asked my brigadier responsible for intelligence as to what the threat was. He replied that it was multi-directional and multi-faceted. When I asked him what on earth that meant he said that he did not have a clue where it was coming from. I sense that that is the kind of attitude that we need to take to the intelligence problem at the moment.
We shall also need to look at the organisation of the civil defence and emergency services and how much we are prepared to fund them. This matter was touched on in an Unstarred Question today. I am aware that since the end of the Cold War the civil defence organisations have been allowed to run down. I believe that that would be a very good task for the Territorial Army. We must worry about the race relations problems in our country. At the same time, to handle the jigsaw of the countries involved—Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, the Gulf states, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia—keep together the coalition and build relationships with some of the more difficult countries will not be easy.
I conclude by saying that the result of this sustained effort will not be what we talk of and predict at the moment.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I hope very much that my noble friends Lady Amos and Lord Bach will take note of those wise words from the noble and gallant Lord.

55
Having spoken in the previous debate on the situation in Afghanistan, I ask the forgiveness of noble Lords for having yet another stab. In the intervening 10 days, events have, if anything, confirmed my view that to counter terrorism, let alone the causes of terrorism, with violence is the wrong approach. Several noble Lords have addressed those causes. I am particularly encouraged that they support the creation of a Palestinian state and the settlement of the Arab/ Israeli dispute on much more radical lines than anything attempted to date.
Last week Professor Sir Michael Howard, the distinguished military historian who has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that a violent response is to play into the hands of the terrorists. The proper approach, as the noble Lord implied, is to use sophisticated police and military intelligence to detect, track down, arrest and try the suspects. In this case that must be accompanied by skilled diplomacy, together with economic sticks and carrots to the countries where the terrorists are based.
During the 25-day interim period between 11th September and the start of the bombing, some of us felt that there was a glimmer of hope that the Prime Minister, having gained the trust of the Americans, might be able to urge caution on that justifiably outraged nation. We hoped that perhaps he could persuade its leaders not to rush in with their usual knee-jerk response of a barrage of missiles and high-level bombs. They have been used with monotonous regularity on less powerful nations which have stepped out of line before and after the Cold War—sometimes with and sometimes without our co-operation. But that was not the case and the bombs began to fall. However, we can be thankful that the Prime Minister's voice was among those who cautioned against including Iraq as a presumed accomplice of Osama bin Laden, therefore deserving further attack, and widening the conflict.
A week or so before the bombing started, Abdul Haq, the exiled Afghan Pashtun leader then in Pakistan, sent a message to our Prime Minister while he was in Islamabad, pleading with him not to bomb Afghanistan. He was sure that the best way to topple the Taliban, and hence get access to bin Laden, was to undermine it from within. This would be more difficult in a war situation since bombing would play into the hands of the Taliban. That advice was not taken. Sadly, we know what became of him. Unfortunately, a similar fate looks like befalling Hamid Karzai, a pro-royalist Afghani Pashtun, who also returned to Afghanistan hoping to rally support and who is now being pursued by the Taliban in a remote mountainous area of Afghanistan. Of course if he could be rescued, that would give a useful boost to the military campaign and the coalition which is now rather uneasily supporting it.
Last Tuesday I attended a presentation in the Jubilee Room by three development NGOs—Oxfam, Christian Aid and Save the Children—on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. They showed us on a map the mountainous areas that will become
56
inaccessible soon due to the weather. There are 500,000 people living there. After 11th September they received supplies until the bombing started. But they were already in a poor state of nutrition due to persistent drought and neglect by the Taliban Government. Since the bombing started almost no supplies have reached them.
Of course not all the people bereft of supplies will die. They are an extremely resilient and tough population. But they will be forced to eat roots and to share among the whole family rations which are barely sufficient for one person. As always in periods of famine, it is the children who will suffer most, mainly because malnourished children become seriously ill when they develop minor infections.
There is little doubt that unless there is a pause in the bombing—which might incidentally allow the gathering of intelligence and the training and equipping of the forces of the Northern Alliance—and a large-scale humanitarian operation mounted, there will be many deaths. Some will die directly from starvation, but most, as I mentioned earlier, will die from common infections which a well nourished child would throw off easily—a common cold or flu becomes pneumonia, and a minor gut infection becomes a fatal gastroenteritis. Even in the unlikely event of a bombing pause being agreed, however, I am afraid that it may already be too late.
Between 4,500 and 5,000 people—the Prime Minister has reminded us not to forget—died in the twin towers disaster. But if only 10 per cent of the vulnerable 500,000 people in the Afghan mountains die as a result of supplies not getting through because of the bombing, that is still 10 times the number killed in New York on 11th September. They will have been unwell and hungry for weeks before their final illness and death, as will their more fortunate relatives who survive. I am sure that the bereaved citizens of New York, angry and heartbroken as they surely must be, would not want to see the additional deaths of several Afghani children per victim of the twin towers tragedy as collateral casualties in the pursuit of bin Laden and Al'Qaeda.
Even now a pause in the bombing, combined with a massive humanitarian operation, could theoretically save many lives, but only if the Taliban can be persuaded to allow that to happen. Sadly, that is not likely. However, it should be pointed out that it permitted supplies to move after 11th September until the bombing began—and a pause could also provide an opportunity to rethink our whole strategy.
I finish with a quotation from Peter Preston in an article in today's Guardian which was critical of both the United States and the British intelligence services. He said that,
"the central argument for a bombing pause now is purely practical, as practical as the weeks spent assembling aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea. When in doubt, stop digging and start thinking. A fundamental intelligence test"!
6.18 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, this has been a measured and, I believe, productive debate on Afghanistan. It certainly has been distinguished by two remarkable maiden speeches from my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater and the noble Lord, Lord Jones. I shall refer to their speeches later in my remarks.
It is now eight weeks since 11th September. I confess that I still feel a bewildered and numbed horror at the sheer event and its impact on North America and the western world generally. In the interval, we have had an opportunity to take a view about what are the appropriate responses to that challenge. I shall refer briefly to the punitive reaction—which is, the reaction of the bombing—and what I call the more defensive reaction, which is the ordering of our societies on a longer-term basis to deal with what many believe will he a continuing threat from terrorism.
The punitive reaction is very much in our minds with the quite extraordinary ferocity of the aerial bombardment now taking place. Some noble Lords have expressed some anxiety about that. I am not in any sense qualified to judge whether the ferocity of the bombing is militarily justified; but I do know this: there is a danger that this situation will become protracted beyond that which is justified militarily. It could begin to give rise to reactions throughout the third world which would be very challenging indeed. My anxiety about this derives to some extent from reflecting on the Boer War. That war was practically over, but then developed a lengthy tail which dragged on far longer than had been anticipated by those in charge of the events.
The language comes readily to mind; we hear talk of "the long haul". All of us should be extremely concerned about the trade-off between continuing the bombardment and the possible consequences elsewhere. I offer no advice on this issue, but I hope that the correct military/political judgment will be exercised so that we resolve to achieve, in general terms, the objectives of the bombardment and then will feel able to address ourselves to the further challenges; otherwise we could easily become overwhelmed by them. No one should doubt that we may be setting a time-sensitive fuse which could detonate the Arab world, in particular those crucial Arabian states which are of vital economic significance to us. The stability of those states is fragile and must he taken into account in all our actions.
I shall leave that tangled area on which I can make no real judgment and turn to the area of our defensive reactions. Here I feel much happier in making my comments. It is absolutely essential for us to realise that terror as an aspect of conflict is not a recent creation. It has existed through the centuries and no doubt will continue long after the present dramas have been resolved. Therefore we should anticipate that terror will be an aspect of war. Given that, we should try to compose ourselves accordingly, just as we were obliged to compose ourselves once nuclear weapons intervened in the theatre of warfare. Powerful speeches were made by my noble friend Lord King and the
58
noble Lord and, dare I say, one-time neighbour, Lord Jones, on the military necessity to improve our domestic defence arrangements. Above all, we need to improve the provision of information and intelligence. I accept at once that those are major priorities.
However, I anticipate that we shall have to consider certain rather more prosaic elements. First, I turn to the need for a tremendous increase in civil defence, both in its provision and in its sophistication. Only this afternoon at Question Time we heard a first inkling of the argument in the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, on the co-ordination of civil defence arrangements here in London. Such arrangements will need to be considered nationwide. It is my judgment that no security can be acquired on the cheap. The Treasury will be the unwelcome guest whenever these matters are considered. I believe that many of our ambitions in terms of taxation and the like will need to be reconsidered. Priorities set for public spending will have to be redesigned to take account of the developing threat.
Secondly, I believe that the open society of which we are so proud in this country will inevitably become a casualty. I do not believe that it will be possible to leave matters such as freedom of information, freedom of movement, and policies covering immigration untouched by the challenges now presenting themselves. To some extent, a degree of conditionality will have to be attached to them. That will not come easily to us. This is a free society and we shall have to debate aggressively every move in the new direction. None the less, I think that we deceive ourselves if we do not realise that limitations will have to be placed on what hitherto we have regarded as characteristic freedoms in our society.
My third point is somewhat tangential. Many problems derive from our overwhelming anxieties as regards the continuing stability of energy supplies and the dominant role played by the Arab world in this regard. We shall be obliged to think quickly about the sources of our energy supplies for the long term. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is not in his place, but in the debate held a few weeks ago he wisely reminded noble Lords of the importance of reconsidering the role that atomic energy can play in our future energy supplies. Of course the case for renewable sources of energy should pass almost without question. While I would not call it the soft option, it is not as uncomfortable an option as nuclear energy; but I believe that we are obliged again to consider such questions anew in the context of the terror challenge that we now face.
Those are all fairly prosaic considerations which do not provide the uplift of the advocacy put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield whose cosmic views for changing the world order were challenging enough, but they represent what governments can do using national instruments and in co-operation and consultation with sister nation states. Those are the unavoidable political challenges—and they are uncomfortable challenges. They will invite the politics of affluence to be laced with something like austerity. I happen to think that

59
that is not a bad thing, but I do know that not only the weeks and months ahead, but also, as all noble Lords who have spoken today have recognised, the very long-term future are now mortgaged to a reshaping of our society to meet the challenge of terrorism. I believe that it is a situation where the Government are disposed to give a lead, and I know that if the lead is given, the nation will follow.
6.27 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Christian Aid and as an associate of CARE International and other charities involved in Afghanistan. For several years I chaired a small charity, the Britain-Afghanistan Trust for Educational Development, which provided teacher training in Badghis province until eventually our work was made impossible both by the civil war and the attitude of the Taliban. Badghis is one of the areas north of Herat which for a long time was contested by the Northern Alliance. It is now facing acute food shortages.
We had achieved significant results with the teacher training project by adapting the curriculum to girls' primary education. Some of those teachers will still be working, unpaid. However, apart from those teachers who are also parents and thus can teach their children at home, there is now no means of reaching half of the children in that society. It is the same story all over Afghanistan and serves to demonstrate the frustration felt by many non-governmental organisations and individuals from our country who for many years have tried to help the Afghan people out of poverty and anarchy.
I now strongly regret that aid agencies engaged in education and development work were unable to maintain their links with the Afghan NGOs. Even those engaged in the most basic humanitarian relief work have been denied contact with the outside world. We should all hope that those contacts can be renewed as quickly as possible after the war finally ends.
The process of separation began long before the events of 11th September and the subsequent bombing campaign in early October. But even after the destruction of the Bamyan monuments last spring, I believe that the international community missed valuable opportunities to keep open the lines of communication. Preserving basic human rights in a closed society of whatever religion always leads to uncomfortable compromises, whether in Rwanda, Kosovo or Kuwait. But in Afghanistan the United Nations and the European Union could have found ways, as I believe the United States was seeking through its drug control programme, of maintaining a dialogue. But, of course, that all ended with those events and then the bombing campaign.
As I have said in previous debates, I have supported the coalition and the involvement of the Arab states from the beginning, and agreed on the necessity of international action against the Taliban. I am certain that 11th September and prompt UN support for a
60
counter-attack have given the world a chance to realign itself against future threats of terrorism and anarchy, which are much more real since the end of the cold war. Like others, I especially applaud the commitment of our Prime Minister in his efforts to unite the front-line states of the middle east, which will have its own advantages, as I shall mention later.
This coalition is not, however, turning out quite as expected. As many have said, it seems that once again the old firm of "US-UK Incorporated" has taken the initiative. Where are the allies? What is their contribution? I recognise that we generate our own propaganda—indeed, that is one of the problems of war—and that the contribution of our NATO partners has been significantly played down by our media, but anyone can see that the international coalition is becoming something else. It has outgrown its mandate and is running out of momentum—a process that will continue unless something can be pulled out of a hat. The world signed up to punitive raids and specific retaliation against terrorism, but not to a full-scale war involving regular bombing of cities and public buildings. It is now even hitting soft civilian targets and may even involve, as now seems likely, the deployment of ground troops.
The events in America were truly appalling, and the long-term psychological impact on the American people remains serious, as I can tell from my own family in America. But we have surely gone beyond the growling and lashing-out phase. We are getting into something much larger that could never command the necessary public support even in our own countries, let alone other United Nations members.
Then there is the question of our new Arab partners and especially of the fragile situation in Pakistan. I warmed to the idea mentioned last week by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, during the Nice treaty debate, that we might extend the NATO treaty to other countries such as Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and India. That could happen under the banner of anti-terrorism, although it may take some time. More urgent is the position of President Musharraf, who has held his country together with remarkable skill. I think that we should all pay tribute to that, but how long can he hold out while the United States is widening the original mandate? Is it not unreasonable and rather cynical, in view of past history, to push Pakistan into a position in which it can easily be placed in jeopardy by a large majority of its citizens? Statements from Egypt and Saudi Arabia that I have read in the past few days are also showing that solidarity with the United States has strict political time limits—and they are rapidly running out.
I welcome the gradual refocusing of attention in our Parliament towards the Middle East. The noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, most cogently argued that that lies at the heart of the crisis. For instance, it was encouraging to hear of President Mubarak's meeting with Shimon Peres and Chairman Arafat at Formentor at the weekend. I am concerned, however, that Israel, which is rightly in the coalition, is also reaping its own rewards. The last fortnight of October saw some of the bloodiest reprisals that we have yet seen in the West

61
Bank and Gaza, where I was just as that week was beginning. Our Government must make it clear that anti-terrorism is not an excuse for states to reinforce their own prejudices and forms of state-sponsored terrorism, whether against minorities or peoples that live under illegal occupation, as the Palestinians are. The Prime Minister was right to visit Syria, and knowing of General Sharon's attempts to legitimise assassination attacks, he need not have been embarrassed by President Assad's definition of terrorism. They have seen it all too often before.
I am hoping to pursue this question with the Government next week. Having recently visited Palestine and seen the position of the new Israeli settlements, which have already been alluded to—let us not forget that many of them include American settlers—I do not believe that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should regard security for Israel in isolation from the security of Palestine and its future Arab neighbours. Through the coalition and the peace process, they must all be brought into one defence treaty backed by the entire international community.
Turning back to the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for mentioning the sittings of the International Development Committee, to which several charities have given evidence. Christian Aid gave a joint presentation with Islamic Relief, which was significant in itself. Their major concern is still the numbers of displaced people who can be reached before the winter. The arguments about the number of tonnes of food provided are becoming academic, as it is known that half the country will very shortly be cut off by the winter snows. One cannot blame the charities for arguing for safe havens or a pause in the bombing, but, again, that looks unrealistic in the context of continuing war.
The more fundamental question is this: when will the bombing end? Noble Lords have been right across the spectrum as to whether it will go on for a long time. Pesonally, I do not see why, if it is the price of keeping international support for the coalition, the United States cannot cease bombing now. Others have hinted at the same point. It could then move towards the negotiation of a ceasefire to re-engage the Taliban and allow the United Nations, along the lines described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to re-establish the contacts that it already has in defined areas of the country and especially those of need.
The United States and the United Kingdom should also examine their true motives in siding with the Northern Alliance. Surely the targeting of Al'Qaeda must remain the outstanding objective, and not the toppling of the Taliban Government by the Northern Alliance. In my personal view, that was doomed from the start. We are not the world's policemen, and nor do we have the right to be so. The longer that we go on with the war, the more difficult it will be to rebuild Afghan society and, above all, the confidence of the people. It is far better to call an international conference under UN auspices and regain the support of countries that are now beyond the usual coterie of
62
NATO and the European Union. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that corrupt and hostile Governments have never deterred an international aid operation. Unfortunately, it is a situation with which the United Nations is all too familiar.
Lastly, there is also a concern among the aid agencies about the cynical use of humanitarian aid in conflict. Will the Minister please give an undertaking that there is no question of the Army now taking on a humanitarian role? I think that we need to be clear about that. This ambiguity, which started with the United States air drop early in the campaign, has set alarm bells ringing among some agencies. Although we have the splendid example of Macedonia, where it is possible in some situations to combine the two roles, it would be better for the Government to clarify the position now and to confirm that they have no present intentions in this war of combining military and humanitarian relief. I should be grateful if the Minister would say something in that respect.
6.39 pm
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for giving us yet another occasion to discuss the ever-fluid situation in Afghanistan. As a defence Minister, he has rightly paid most attention to what is going on in the war effort, but as winter is on the horizon and military activity may slow down, it is also now time that we turned our attention to what we will do when there is peace. We need to look ahead to see what that process will be.
Politically, we have the Northern Alliance—about which there has been much talk—but there have been precious few other political parties involved so far in what we hope will be a comprehensive peace government in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance is not everyone's favourite. Certainly Pakistan barely approves of it, and is well known to be, at best, without much enthusiasm for it.
In another place, Ministers were talking about Pakistan opening its borders to refugees, rather conveniently forgetting that there are approximately 1.5 million there already and perhaps another 2 million seeking a safe haven. In this country, quite rightly, we are worried about asylum seekers who perhaps number a couple of hundred. We have to ensure that our priorities are right and that we are able to look the world in the face on this matter.
We have to be careful about the allies to whom Afghanistan will cosy up. It has been said already that the regime in Afghanistan is as appalling as that of the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, only a couple of decades ago. The number of people killed in that country runs into millions. It is extraordinary what humanity can do to the rest of humanity. It is a murderous suggestion which the Taliban has been only too happy to continue to push. We need to support countries such as Pakistan and its neighbours, which have a local knowledge of the country, its political situation and the religious aspects that come into play, which are not always apparent in the West. I hope that we shall find a way to ensure peace after the war.

63
We need to get the United Nations involved. That organisation has not been brought in because the issue has been engineered, with considerable reason, by the United States. I hope that when the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replies she will be able to tell us how the Government intend to give their full attention to winning the peace after we have, it is hoped, won the war.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the general view is that the attention span of people in our fast-moving, modern times is relatively small, but there is still a vivid recollection of what happened on 11th September. However, I am not sure that there is a widespread understanding of the purposes of the present action. Many people think that it is a chase of bin Laden, who may well come to be seen in some parts of the world as a Robin Hood or Saladin-like figure. As a south Yorkshireman, I do not wish to comment on Robin Hood; he has been too useful for north Nottinghamshire.
If anyone reading history sought to compare Saladin and bin Laden, they would conclude that they are very different people. The one was a courteous, fine soldier. He was generous, even sending his medical advisers to assist Richard the Lionheart. Bin Laden represents a serious threat. But he is not the only one, and if there is a failure to respond to this terrorism, heaven knows what will happen in 10 or 20 years as more countries obtain more hideous weapons.
Unfortunately, the image of Robin Hood or Saladin is probably tolerated, even encouraged, by the media. When I saw the rapid response of the media to the Prime Minister's recent visit, I was horrified. The general view that the visit was a failure was based purely on the playing to the gallery of the Syrian leader. What matters is what was said in meetings to which the press had no access. If the Prime Minister, as I suspect, was seeking to ensure not only that we maintain an adequate alliance but prepare the ground for a sane situation when the conflict is over, that would have been a very great purpose. Perhaps the media might, at that point, apologise.
That is not the only matter for concern. One television channel recently held a phone-in: "Ring in and tell us whether you approve of the bombing". I do not know whether it also transmitted serious programmes explaining to viewers what the bombing was for. I do not suppose it informed its viewers that the bombing was gradual; that there was very little in the first days, to give the Taliban an opportunity to come to its senses or to show that it had some semblance of caring for its people.
It is perhaps a good thing that television was not so pervasive in past years. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to Wellington in the Peninsula. Imagine what would have happened if a documentary had been made on the eve of Agincourt, where experts debated whether the longbow was likely to be efficient, or whether the English army, outnumbered by 12 or 14 to
64
one, could survive. If there had been television programmes such as that, the army would probably have melted into the night.
And what about Nelson? If his admirals had considered the unorthodoxy of his tactics before Trafalgar—and certainly if the Sunday newspapers had had free rein in regard to other aspects of Nelson's career—he probably would not have been allowed to
leave Portsmouth.
As to the Second World War, given some of the programmes I have seen in the past year about Bomber Command, one would have thought it was completely wasteful of young men's lives. But what would have happened if Bomber Command had not raided Peenemünde and the Germans had been able to loose the V2 rockets upon Britain six months or more earlier, and the V1 rockets even earlier than that? Would the little ships have gone to Dunkirk to rescue the expeditionary force if there had been television documentaries or discussion groups about whether that was a vain possibility?
We have to understand that the media have a duty to inform. No one is suggesting that the media should engage in cheap propaganda, but I believe that, in some cases, we have seen a leaning-over backwards which is not in the interests of a free society. The media do not seem to have adequately informed the British people of the nature of the Taliban. People know about the treatment of women—they have to wear burkas and are not allowed to work, so that widows and their children starve unless they receive charity. But I am not sure that they fully understand that the Taliban view is that if a man sees any part of a woman, be it her fingernails or toenails, it would feel justified in inflicting 29 lashes upon her.
The Taliban's record is such that, in my view, we have to do all we can to overturn the regime, even apart from its accommodation of terror and the hospitality it affords bin Laden. I do not think that he will leave there because no other country in the world would be daft enough to have him. So we have to pursue him.
But not only bin Laden. All of the tentacles of terror have to be tackled. I strongly supported the slogan that we must be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. We have to be tough on terror and tough on the funding and resourcing of terror. We also have to be tough on the causes of terror. We have therefore to ensure that we do not easily swallow the view that the bombing must end and that there must be no hostilities during Ramadan. For example, we cannot possibly allow British servicemen to go into that inhospitable country without air cover and without having established air supremacy—which has been achieved. But if we are properly to tackle the most grievous problem of Afghanistan—namely, the appalling conditions of its people—ground forces will have to go in to establish secure routes along which aid can be taken. We shall not solve the problem of Afghanistan by merely delivering aid to a few areas that are accessible from Pakistan or the other neighbouring countries. Aid will be required on such an enormous scale that there will have to be an adequate military presence to ensure that it is delivered.

65
During the Gulf War—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, knows far more than I—Britain's major contribution was the delivery of the JP-233 weapon, an airfield denial weapon, which worked extremely effectively. As I believe my noble friend Lord Gilbert would confirm, that weapon is no longer in the British armoury. I do not believe that cluster bombs have quite the same disastrous, and delayed, capacity as the JP-233. Providing that cluster bombs are used with great care, and purely on forward military positions, if their use saves the lives of allied forces entering Afghanistan, in my view they are justified. We are not sending our young men to bear risks simply to placate a fashionable view in the media. Nor are we sending them to face risks if it prevents them from serving the cause of humanity, which must be at the very heart of our strategy.
But we must also be wise about the political structures in the world after the military action. I do not want to go further on the question of the Middle East. It has been accepted that there will be no peace in the Middle East or in central Asia unless there is a settlement in Israel. I hope that the Prime Minister will use his influence to ensure that the United States accepts that. Over many years in the Political Committee of the Council of Europe I have found Sharon's approach and that of Likud deplorable. Lord Finsberg and I drafted a statement on behalf of the Council of Europe which was perfectly balanced and sensible. My noble friend Lord Judd can see the statement if he looks at the records of the Political Committee. But it was resisted, we were attacked, and there was delay on the part of the Likud representatives, who offered no hope whatever either to Israel in the end or to the Middle East in general. There must be a settlement. If it comes about as a result of the present conflict, we shall certainly have seen a major step forward. We must retain the military capacity and the intelligence capacity to ensure that no further tentacles of terror are established such as Mr bin Laden has established over the past five years.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the events of the past two months have amounted to a cataclysm—a big "minus" for the world, particularly the democratic world. However, there are some "pluses". One is that the United States and Russia are drawing closer together, especially in the important field of nuclear weapons. It is becoming possible to discern a settlement which might be achieved on that important subject. Chechnya is still a problem. Russia's treatment of the Chechens has not been good enough. However, we can begin to understand why the Russians regard the Chechen rebels as terrorists. We should now be asking ourselves whether there are any fundamental problems between the Western democracies—NATO in particular—and Russia. That in itself is a big step forward.
Secondly, the events of 11th September have removed the danger of US isolationism. There was a genuine fear when George W. Bush came to office that that would be the trend of United States' policy. I
66
speak as a firm supporter of the United States It has a vital role to play in the future of us all. But recent events may make the United States—healthily —ask itself why it is so criticised in so many parts of the world, not least in Latin America and the Middle East; and indeed, why it is hated in many parts of the world. Unjustified though those feelings are, they are very real factor in international politics.
Thirdly, there is an interesting trend in the opinion polls in the United States as regards the willingness of the population to accept military casualties. It is generally agreed that it has been a weakness in the world's number one power that it has not been prepared to accept a single military casualty. That was true during the mission in Kosovo; indeed, it nearly de-railed the Kosovo enterprise.
There is a parallel tendency; namely, a reluctance on the part of the United States to accept any detriment to any United States citizen at the hands of foreigners. One has only to look at the United States' attitude towards the International Criminal Court. The American negative attitude towards that court is a major misjudgment in United States' foreign policy. I hope that it will be remedied in the same way as opinion is changing in relation to military casualties.
There is a fourth "plus". It relates to the problem of Israel, referred to by so many speakers. There are recent indications that as a result of the events of 11th September the United States may be recognising the harm that is being done to its foreign policy by its failure to restrain Israel. That is the single most important element in bin Laden's support. He refers constantly to the failure of the United States to use the levers available to it to restrain the Israeli Government. I am not saying that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians are behaving correctly; I am focusing only on the attitude in so many parts of the world, especially in the Muslim world, towards the United States because of its attitude towards Israel. Certainly, the Palestinian terrorists are to be deplored, and the Palestinians for their part have missed many opportunities.
Successive Israeli governments, especially where there has been a Likud majority, have deliberately, it seems to me, avoided a peace agreement. In particular, they have avoided Israel's obligations under the Oslo peace process. I very much welcome the call by President George W. Bush and by the Prime Minister for a Palestinian state. I hope that before long, if one can seize the opportunity which I believe may exist, we shall hear calls for a withdrawal from the settlements in the occupied territories. They are, after all, contrary to international law. The kind of move that I am referring to, the willingness to engage in a peace process, would be very much in the interests of the Israeli people.
I want to mention one or two things that we, the Americans and our friends can do about the present problems. To those who call for an end to the bombing, I say: having started, we cannot stop now. That would be seen by bin Laden and the Taliban as a great weakness on our part. It would be a boost for

67
them. If the bombing and the military action generally are successful, I believe that we may see a tendency for people in Afghanistan to provide a flow of information about bin Laden and his whereabouts. Betrayal has played a significant role in the battles in Afghanistan between Afghans. If it is seen that we are beginning to prevail, the five million dollar bounty that has been placed on bin Laden by the United States Government may become more tempting. I do not believe that there is any reason to cease military action during Ramadan. I understand that it does not cease between Afghans when they fight one another. It did not cease during the Iran/Iraq war.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord King on his brilliant maiden speech. I congratulate, too, the noble Lord, Lord Jones, on his speech discussing the matter of intelligence. I had the privilege of serving under the noble Lord, Lord King, with the noble Lord, Lord Jones, as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a vital matter. I support my noble friend Lord King in regretting the run-down of the United States security and intelligence services—the CIA and the FBI. The noble Lord, Lord King, was right to say that once you have run down such an organisation, it takes a long time to build it up again.
In addition to the factors that my noble friend mentioned, I am told that another factor caused the decline in the effectiveness of those organisations: the adoption of political correctness in recruitment. Sean Connery, in his favourite role, might have found it difficult to be accepted by those organisations during that time.
Perhaps I may suggest two ways in which the coalition may be able to deprive the Taliban and bin Laden of some of their funding. I understand that 90 per cent of the heroin which reaches this country comes from Afghanistan. Has the coalition—the Americans or ourselves—considered spraying the poppy fields in order to destroy the source of the heroin? That would have two benefits. First, it would destroy much of the funding used by the Taliban and bin Laden to purchase arms abroad. Secondly, it would limit the supplies of heroin. I do not know the time of year most appropriate for spraying the fields. According to an encyclopaedia I have consulted, it tends to be the spring. I suggest that the idea is worth consideration.
Bin Laden is said to be deeply involved in the trade in illicit diamonds—what are called blood diamonds. Are we doing enough to interrupt that commerce which I understand brings benefits to his finances?
Food aid has not been a success. Dropping it at the same time as bombs gave an undeserved, though understandable, impression of cynicism by the United States. That was increased by the fact that the bomblets contained in the cluster bombs and the food parcels were the same colour—yellow. If it is the intention, as is rumoured, for the coalition to drive land corridors into Afghanistan, that might be a better way in future of distributing food aid.
68
My next point concerns the anthrax problem. The time has come—indeed, it has passed—when the world must turn its attention urgently again to dealing with the dangers of the acquisition by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. The world cannot kid itself that the problem will go away. I am encouraged to read in today's Financial Times that the Americans are considering raising the issue again with the United Nations.
My last point involves public relations. It is relevant in other countries and here at home. We are told that on his recent trip the Prime Minister was informed that 60 per cent of Muslims in the Middle East believe that Israeli and United States intelligence services were responsible for the attack on the twin towers in New York. We know that the US/Vietnam war was lost in the living rooms of America. We do not want to see that happening in this crisis. The public relation task is difficult. It is made more difficult by the tendency of the media increasingly to emphasise bad news because it sells more copies and attracts more viewers. That is contrary to what happens in Middle Eastern countries where information is controlled. For example, do many Afghans know that there is a bounty of 5 million dollars on the capture of bin Laden? The United States should concentrate on managing better the time difference between Afghanistan and western countries, in particular ourselves and the United States. I have the impression that the Taliban is skilful in managing the provision of news so that it captures our headlines.
Finally, I agree again with my noble friend Lord King that it is important for the Government to ensure that the BBC overseas services are adequately funded to spread the truth.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, whatever gloss is put on it, we are apparently engaged in a full scale war in Afghanistan. That is wrong. What happened on 11th September was a mass murder of the most pointless, cruel and vicious kind. But mass murders should not cause wars particularly when they are not committed by a nation. The days of the War of Jenkins's Ear are long past. In those days, no international body could be called in. Now, mass murders and crimes call for police action. Ever since the Nuremberg trials, organisations have been set up in which police action can be taken.
In an admirable lecture to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies—the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has touched upon it—Sir Michael Howard outlined how we should have dealt with the mass murder and how eventually we must deal with it. If we are to succeed we must win the battle for the hearts and minds of the people who shelter terrorists, as we did the first time that phrase was used in Malaysia. We have now lost the first battle of this war by escalating the action and ensuring that many innocent lives are lost, as they are lost in any war which is handed over to machines. We have also ensured that terrorism will carry on because we have met terrorism with force and that in turn will be met with force.

69
However, there is a possible way to escape the full rewards of the folly of President Bush and Mr Blair as Professor Howard explained in his lecture. It was reported last week in the Evening Standard as many noble Lords will have noted. I refer to taking advantage of our first chance to claim that we have achieved something. I agree that we cannot stop now when it will be claimed that we have been defeated. We must do so when we have achieved something—if only the toppling of the Taliban Government who were not responsible for the crime and who were put there by the Americans. We must take that opportunity and cease military action.
When we have done that, we must embark on the long, complex and difficult diplomatic and intelligence task to win hearts and minds—in Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria and Palestine, among others. At the same time we must embark on a path to reform our western way of life—and here I would agree with what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield—until we begin to decrease the gap between rich and poor in our own countries and in the world at large. Such gaps always provide fertile fuel for terrorism.
That would be a war well worth winning. It would be one which the Green Party, of which I am a member, would wholeheartedly support, as we cannot support this disastrous and doomed war in its present form.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise as the 23rd speaker. Many things have been said and so I shall try to say something different.
First, I want to adopt the two time frames proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, in his excellent speech. There is one long war against terrorism, and here one is using the word "war" in a figurative sense, not a proper military or legal sense. War on terrorism, like war on drugs, goes on for ever.
The topic of today's debate is the military action in Afghanistan. Unlike many noble Lords, I am not pessimistic about what has happened in the last four weeks. If there is to be military action, it is best to get it over with as quickly as possible. One has to fight a wholehearted war, not a war of half-measures. One cannot suddenly give up, think of something else, then come back. That just prolongs the agony.
This applies especially to the provision of humanitarian aid, as my noble friend Lord Bach said. The sooner we destroy the Taliban's ability to divert supplies away from humanitarian purposes, the better we shall be at providing humanitarian aid. We learned this lesson in Somalia. When there is a failed state and humanitarian aid is being provided—if I may use a Wild West analogy—there must be someone riding shotgun. In Afghanistan we not only have a failed state but a vicious failed state which will act against the welfare of its own citizens—just to spite us.
We have to be absolutely clear about this. Even before 11th September the Taliban were worth destroying—for destroying the Buddhist statues at
70
Bamyan, making the Hindu population wear special costumes, incarcerating people who had gone there to provide aid on the grounds that they were spreading Christianity—this is an evil regime. We respect sovereignty under the UN Charter, but there are times when we have to say that such evil shall not take place because it is a violation of human rights. I have no problem with the fact that, along with wanting to get rid of Al'Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, want to destroy the Taliban. I would put the destruction of the Taliban above almost anything else.
There has to be a bombing campaign which is efficient, quick and effective and, along the way, we have to understand that civilians will die. It would be brilliant if one could devise a campaign in which only soldiers died, only military installations were destroyed, no civilians died and no civilian property was destroyed; where there was perfect humanitarian aid, co-ordinated with a military campaign. and successful political negotiations. The world is not like that.
We should try to avoid civilian deaths by all means, but I do not know of any war where there ha-^ e been no civilian deaths. In the 10 years since the Cold War ended there have been wars around the world, of which we have taken little notice, in which 20 million civilians have died. Three million civilians died in what used to be called the Congo, and the world took hardly any notice—partly because, unless Western powers are involved, people do not care about civilian deaths. It is a paradox. There are obviously responsibilities to be considered other than humanitarian causes as such.
While we should try to avoid civilian deaths, we should not let that be used against us as propaganda and deflect us from what we have to do, because a war half-heartedly fought goes on for a long time and causes greater misery than a war which is short and effective. I hasten to add that I say that with absolutely no experience as a soldier or as a military man.
Secondly in that respect, to consider a political solution for Afghanistan is slightly premature. We are trying to fashion the perfect solution for the political settlement of Afghanistan, and that is undoubtedly a noble thing to do. However, until we clear some ground which we hold in Afghanistan independently of the Taliban, unless we can demonstrate that we control some territory, a political settlement has no credibility. It is like castles in the air.
In that regard, I do not think that we should take the interests of Pakistan, Iran, or anybody else, very seriously. Their interests are partisan. We should go ahead and do whatever we have to do, without paying attention to people who are not so very helpful at the present time.
The first priority is military and one of clearing a space, partly to be able to help humanitarian aid and partly to get a foothold on the ground, which will then give us credibility in devising a political solution later. I do not believe that one can devise a solution for Afghanistan which will necessarily work in the way one wants it to work. I would draw a parallel between Afghanistan and Ethiopia—a country which was

71
quiet, if not prosperous. When Haile Selassie was thrown out, there followed 30 years of total chaos, a great deal of violence and very dire conditions for the people. Then Mengistu had to be thrown out, and they entered into another war. Well meaning though our efforts may be, they will not necessarily create a heaven on earth in Afghanistan, but at least we will be able to get rid of the Taliban—and anything will be better than the Taliban. In devising a political solution, therefore, we shall have to have lower expectations than those with which we have started.
There is, however, a longer-running programme than the war against terrorism. It is a war against people who reject modernity. The war between the West and the East, the Cold War as it was then known, was a war between two different versions of modernity, one liberal and one illiberal. This, however, is a very different kind of war. This is a war involving people who reject all the good values of modernity, like human rights and tolerance, but who do not reject the bad things about modernity, namely its destructive technology. Here are people who accept Western technology, military devices, information technology and so on, but then reject what they call Western values. In other words, they reject the best part of modernity. As I said in my previous speech on this topic, that is a particular problem with west Asia or the Middle East in a wider sense due to various historical reasons which I shall not go into again. In a sense, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the problems in Palestine have given rise to an ethnic nationalism which is not only virulent but believes that it is only in rejecting modernity that it can establish its claim to legitimacy.
We ought to explain to those people that some modern values are perfectly consistent with practising Islam and a variety of different political cultures but still respect certain fundamental values. I refer to a long-running war because we have hardly started. "War" is the wrong word to use, but it will be a cultural war and a war in which the British Council and the World Service will be useful. This is a war in which we shall have to learn a lot about Arab culture, Islam and the various movements across the Muslim world, which exists not only in the Middle East. We have not even prepared ourselves yet for that war which will continue for 10 years.
People may recall the conflict in which the CIA was involved. I do not say that we should conduct ourselves in that way. The CIA fought a cultural war in which it encouraged people to express themselves and sponsored good magazines such as Encounter. Painting was encouraged and the holding of conferences. We need to do a variety of things, display our best side and try to understand what makes people reject modernity. If we understand that we can ultimately win hearts and minds. As I say, the time-scale of this war is long and it will remain long after the immediate problem of Afghanistan has been solved and even, dare I say, long after the Palestinian problem has been solved, as there will still be people who reject modernity.
72
I believe that there is room for cautious optimism. One thing which makes me optimistic is the desperation Mr bin Laden feels right now. He tried to issue an appeal to Pakistan hoping that Pakistan would erupt in a big revolt. However, it did not erupt in a big revolt. He then issued another appeal to all Arab nations hoping that their populations would revolt against their rulers. That has not happened. We should recognise therefore that perhaps our PR is failing but his PR is also failing. Let us not overestimate the success of the Taliban and its PR and underestimate our success. Surely Al'Qaeda must have thought that, when it attacked the twin towers and when America retaliated, the Muslim world would erupt against America. Some parts have ignited but many have not. With patience and with the kind of diplomacy the Prime Minister practised in Syria and Israel, and further efforts of that kind, we can contain the eruption elsewhere. The fact that across west Asia the Muslim world has not erupted en masse and no regimes have yet been toppled should give us hope that perhaps there is a light at the end of this tunnel and that the tunnel is not all that long.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I may be wrong but I suspect that I am one of only three people in your Lordships' House who have had some experience of fighting on the Frontier: the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, was in the 6th Lancers, the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, was, I believe in the Gilgit Scouts and I spent five years in an Indian cavalry regiment, the 19th Lancers. Most of my active service was in Burma and Malaya, as it was then called, but there were those in the regiment with long and wide experience of service on the North West Frontier. It is a completely different kind of warfare.
When the Soviets attacked Afghanistan they soon came to recognise what in our time we always knew; namely, that the key to influence in that region did not lie in bombing so much as in the ability to provide sufficient privileges in terms of cash and pay-offs to those who mattered. In other words, bribes were more effective than bombs, or perhaps to put it more delicately, it was a case of divide and rule. Indeed, bin Laden's own ability to keep the Taliban in check involves bribing them heavily with money secured through the drugs trade.
Those in your Lordships' House who have had any experience of military affairs will never forget the terms: information, intention, courses open to the enemy, own troops and method—an approach to problems well known to every private soldier and every field marshal. We all know and appreciate what the intention is, of course; that is, to bring bin Laden to justice. But not enough is said of his intentions, although they have been mentioned several times during the course of the debate. For him Afghanistan is a sideshow, a means to achieve his ultimate objective which is control of Saudi Arabia, the oilfields and the holy places. In frustrating him I am not so certain that our tactics have been as effective as we have heard today.

73
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said that the war in Vietnam was eventually lost not on the field of battle but on television. In his excellent speech the noble Lord. Lord King of Bridgwater, drew attention to the influence of television in this conflict. We should be concerned at the way in which television daily shows horrific casualties and at newspaper reports with similar photographs. We would be foolish to underestimate the impact of that not only on the Muslim population in our own country but also on those overseas.
Many noble Lords have mentioned Ramadan, which starts in a week's time. At the risk of being labelled a "wet", and despite what has been said about the success of the bombing campaign so far, I hope that during Ramadan it will be more accurately targeted. This very day I chaired the first meeting of Islamic Awareness Week in Portcullis House, the object of which is to win the hearts and minds—numerous noble Lords have used that phrase in the debate—not only of the British Muslim population but also of others of the Islamic faith particularly in Arabia and especially in the front-line state of Pakistan.
I do not know how many noble Lords read the excellent article—it is a good reason to buy the Daily Telegraph on a Monday—of the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, entitled, Criticism should not be stifled by war. He recounted the story of a First World War veteran who was interviewed and asked to whom in the First World War he owed his loyalty, to which the veteran replied, "To my mates". That sentiment should not be underestimated in terms of winning hearts and minds.
As regards Afghanistan everyone agrees that the crying need is for some form of massive reconstructive Marshall Plan under the auspices perhaps of the United Nations or of some neutral state, probably during a ceasefire. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other noble Lords mentioned that point.
The traditional way of resolving disputes in Afghanistan remains, as it always has been, a Loya Jirga—a meeting of chiefs, local leaders, religious scholars and respected individuals. In this case, it would need to appoint an interim government. Despite his age and infirmity, the former King, Zahir Shah, could be the catalyst for that. That government must be acceptable to Pakistan—not just drawn from the Northern Alliance, but broadly based, with some moderate Taliban input as well.
I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about Pakistan. I understand that General Pervez Musharraf may be coming to London soon. I hope that he will be told that the British Government will drop sanctions against Pakistan and that his country will be brought back into full membership of the Commonwealth. It is a disgraceful irony that Zimbabwe remains a full member of the Commonwealth while Pakistan is out. Pakistan has 2 million refugees, with others camping on its borders. It is a crucial ally. One immediate and effective way of helping Pakistan's economy would be for relief supplies to be purchased locally, rather than flown in
74
from Europe and the United States. Numerous references, including by the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Hardy of Wath, have been made to the dropping of food parcels with yellow labels around them. Pakistan can provide grain, rice, blankets, tents, cooking oil and medicines—all the things that the Afghans need and would use—instead of the rations that are flown in from the United States and elsewhere.
A prosperous Pakistan in a highly volatile part of the world is crucial. If the president is weakened or even overthrown rather than strengthened, the alternative is likely to be a Taliban-style government with nuclear weapons. Surely that should be avoided at all costs.
We all want an end to terrorism and a return to peace, but we would be kidding ourselves if we failed to address the roots of the present conflict in Afghanistan. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions today that those roots are found in the Middle East and Palestine, but they are also found in Kashmir, which has not been mentioned so often today. Unless and until there is a just and fair resolution in those two matters, there will never be the lasting peace that we all desire and pray for.
I fought in the Far East for five years. Those of us who have been to war never want to do it again. I do not know how many of your Lordships have heard of Woodbine Willie (G.A. Studdert Kennedy) in the First World War. He wrote the following poem about war:
"Waste of muscle, waste of brain,
Waste of patience, waste of pain,
Waste of manhood, waste of health,
Waste of beauty, waste of wealth,
Waste of blood, waste of tears,
Waste of youth's most precious years,
Waste of ways the saints have trod,
Waste of glory, waste of God, War."
7.35 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, this has been a most interesting and informative debate, marked by two distinguished maiden speeches. I have not participated in our previous debates on this subject over the past few weeks, because I felt rather ill fitted to do so and did not have any penetrating insights into the international situation that I felt impelled to share with your Lordships. However, as the Government's approach has developed over the past few weeks, there are now two or three points that I would like to make.
When I started thinking about the events of 11th September and the appropriate response to them, there seemed, regrettably, to be no alternative to military action once the Taliban had refused to yield up bin Laden and his associates. At the same time, I was filled with anxiety and foreboding about the likely consequences for economically and strategically important Middle Eastern states and about the difficulty of running a humanitarian campaign alongside what was to all intents and purposes warfare. Nevertheless, I support the Government's position and I want to explain why.

75
The coalition and its maintenance are crucial for two reasons. First, it prevents the present action being seen as a clash of civilisations between Islam and Christianity, because Islamic states have signed up to the coalition. That makes it more legitimate to claim that the action is against terrorism, rather than a broader based Samuel Huntington-type clash between two different types of civilisation. The coalition is vital for securing that moral perspective.
Equally, the coalition is important in the long run. Preventing chemical, biological and nuclear materials falling into terrorist hands, will require diplomacy, cooperation and agreement between states. Any regimes to prevent the spread and seepage of those materials cannot be secured in the long term by military power, however vast; it depends on international co-operation and agreement. The coalition could be a crucial basis for securing that in the future.
Both as regards the current short-term—we hope—military action and in the longer term, the coalition is crucial. I very much appreciate the Prime Minister's fantastic efforts to keep it together.
It is therefore vital to reject some of the hints coming out through newspaper columns in the United States and occasionally here, seemingly inspired by some of the more hawkish members of the American administration around the Department of Defense, that somehow the coalition could turn out to be an unjustified constraint on the actions that the US might feel the need to take against other targets, particularly Iraq. Taking that line would be a grave error. Any future regime to control the spread of the materials of terror will rely crucially on international co-operation. Only in the most metaphorical sense can the US be regarded as the world's policeman, because policing and constraining the production and exchange of dangerous substances, be they chemical, biological or nuclear, requires detailed agreements and the detailed co-operation of states. From that perspective, the maintenance and continual renewal of the coalition is vital.
Picking up the theme of a number of speeches this afternoon, there is no doubt that the Israeli-Palestinian problem has fed and given impetus to terrorism. I am pleased by the recognition here and in the United States of the need for a viable Palestinian state. The Palestinians need to be given hope if moderate leadership is to prevail and to be sustained. In these difficult times, every effort should be made to advance the peace process. Removing the causes of perceived injustice is crucial to the anti-terrorism strategy.
Holding out the hope of a Palestinian state is important in that, at last, the Palestinians will have a sense of what the end of the process of negotiation will yield. The alternative has been to negotiate in an incremental way without any assurances about the final goal of that process. No doubt chairman Arafat has made some colossal misjudgments in his time, not least in his negotiations with Prime Minister Barak. The consequences of those misjudgments have been
76
tragic. Nevertheless, in my view, the fall of Arafat would be a catastrophe because any successor would probably be more extreme or more beholden to extremists.
Therefore, in picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, and, I believe, implicitly by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, it seems to me very important that pre-conditions for talks should not be placed on chairman Arafat if he cannot meet them without running a grave risk to the survival of his own authority within Palestine. I believe that any alternative from the Israeli point of view would turn out to be very much worse.
The third point that I want to make has not been picked up during the course of the debate. The current action has revealed how difficult it is to undertake military action with a strong cultural and religious dimension—however much we may want to deny that, nevertheless it is perceived by many people to exist—in a multi-cultural society. I think, for example, of a worrying poll of Muslims which appeared in yesterday's Sunday Times.
Over the past decade or so, we have spent much time emphasising what in academic terms is usually called "the politics of difference"; that is, recognising the rights, role and representation of groups, whether they be religious or cultural groups, in modern democracies. It is right that we should do that in a diverse and pluralistic society.
However, it is equally important that we emphasise what binds us together as common citizens of the United Kingdom. We must emphasise what we have in common and what values we share and define in being British. Without a sense of citizenship underpinned by a set of values, it seems to me that it is very difficult to generate a sense of loyalty and allegiance from the different groups that make up our now divergent society. It is important that we try to deploy whenever possible the positive arguments that exist in favour of the way of life which we not only value but for which we are asking our troops possibly to lay down their lives to defend.
Those values are rooted in positive matters. This is a rather important issue. An Islamic theologian called Akhtar argued that the guiding notion of liberal democracy was doubt. It is because we doubt that we know the truth and because we doubt that we know what values are important, and so forth, that in our type of society we favour democracy. We do not know what the truth is and we do not know what values add up to. We are tolerant because, again, we do not know what the truth is. Akhtar's argument is that a society based on doubt is at a grave disadvantage when faced by societies with a strong belief in positive values.
I do not believe that we should allow liberal democracy to be characterised in that way. Liberal values are positive. They relate to equality of concern, equality of respect, human dignity, the rule of law, impartiality in the application of law, and so on. They can be given a deep moral justification. They are not only, as it were, ways in which to cope with doubt and diversity, although they have a role in that. Yet,

77
without some emphasis upon the cogency of the way of life that we have, it is very difficult to expect others, whose moral perspective may be rather different but who nevertheless live in that society, to feel a sense of allegiance and loyalty to it. I believe that we must now consider ways in which to generate a stronger sense of our own common identity.
When we were a more homogeneous society, that was not necessary. Culture, habits, history, understanding and tradition were shared. Now that identity must be developed, articulated and stated. As an issue, it is much more reflective and must be acquired. In the future, in terms of ideas about citizenship, the teaching of citizenship and having requirements in relation to citizenship for applicants seeking settlement in the United Kingdom, it is a matter for which some of the initiatives being taken in the Home Office will be important. Therefore, it is significant both in terms of what we are trying to defend and in terms of how we secure the allegiance of groups within British society to the values that we are trying to defend.
My fourth point concerns the post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Here, I speak from more or less total ignorance. I am sure that it is one of those commonsensical issues to which there are clear answers, but I have not the faintest idea what they are. It seems obvious that there is a great deal to be said in terms of both military effectiveness and ideological convenience in having the Northern Alliance play the major role militarily on the ground in liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban. After all, if liberation can come via the Afghans themselves, so much the better. That is the positive part.
On the other hand, if the Northern Alliance plays the dominant role, with American and British troops in support, and rolls into Kabul as the victorious group—the final liberation, as it were, being down to them—what type of guarantee can we have that the broadly based government that we all want to see will be in place? In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, reference is often made to the settlements as being "facts on the ground". If the Northern Alliance were in possession of Kabul, that would be a fairly major fact on the ground. I wonder how we shall move from that to the broadly based government that we all want to see.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I believe that the greatest compliment that we can pay to our forces who are in the vicinity of Afghanistan is to conduct this debate freely and with rigour. Although I suspect that we are all considering these issues with one hand tied behind our backs, I believe that one must do one's best to understand and comment on the policy as now pursued because, in the long term, the lives of our service people depend on it.
We do not know the full story. The context is changing rapidly and continuously. The circumstances are unpredictable to a perhaps unique degree, and I suggest that the context is politically unparalleled. The
78
lessons of Milosevic in Kosovo, of Kuwait and elsewhere are of little use in contemplating the debate tonight. Those situations did not have the strong, overt religious and cultural issues that bin Laden has put at the forefront of his attempt at persuasion.
Afghanistan has already had 22 years of conflict and is a uniquely tragic wasteland. This is not a state against state conflict. The enemy has only rifles, mules and a few broken-down bits of equipment. Strangely, although much has been said of the media tonight, in these circumstances they are curtailed to an extraordinary degree so that we see very little, if anything, from the front line.
I should like to praise the Prime Minister for the way in which he has gone about this most dreadful business. The coalition, which he had a principal hand in putting together, is the best hope for the eventual outcome. I praise, too, his willingness to go to Syria, Jordan and Israel. Far from being the débâcle that was presented in parts of the press, that was a crucially important thing for him to have done.
Richard Spring, shadow Foreign Office Minister in the other place, and I met the Syrian Foreign Secretary earlier this year. My impression of the sophistication, knowledge and understanding of the Syrian Foreign Secretary, who is still in post, makes me think that the hour that the Prime Minister spent with Mr Bashar will be of enormous importance in time to come.
I shall confine my remarks to what Mr Blair said at the end of that whistle-stop tour; namely, that he was bent on influencing public opinion in the Muslim and Arab world. Again, that must be right. Part of the uniqueness of the Afghan situation is that this is a war with terrorism, not with a state. It is a war both physical and metaphysical. We can win the physical war and lose the metaphysical war. If we lose the war of hearts and minds, we again lose the physical war. To capture and defeat bin Laden, to destroy his terrorist network and to overthrow the Taliban will not be of long-term effect unless we prevent 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 other terrorists, as extreme as he, continuing his dreadful work.
I sense that world opinion, not only outside the West, is delicately poised in this regard. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to what he called the ambivalent constituency. Although the general condemnation of the wickedness of 11th September is widespread, generally speaking the relationship between the underdeveloped world and the developed world is complex and highly fragile.
Western capitalism is not seen as an unmitigated good in all parts of the world. It is certainly not the symbol of democratic freedom in parts of the Middle East and the Muslim world that it is to the Americans and in the West. Rather, it can be seen as a narrow code of ruthlessly selfish materialism, which, because it is so much more forcefully and successfully advanced among western democracies, carries with it some of the overtones of the oppressor, the patroniser and the begetter of contempt for the less developed often ancient—cultures. Those cultures are written off as

79
being backward, corrupt and ineffectual—as indeed,to some degree, some are—without any countervailing understanding of their histories and virtues.
Furthermore, the garish righteousness of the West is not viewed in all parts of the world—particularly in those parts that we are trying to influence—as being free of hypocrisy. Those people think of the fact that the CIA trained bin Laden and of the role of the Americans in Afghanistan. As soon as the Russians were defeated, Afghans saw the Russians withdraw and show no interest in the reconstruction of their civic society. They do not forget the part played by Britain and America in particular in the creation and sustenance of Israel at the expense of local Palestinians, and the extraordinarily inconsistent approach by us and the Americans towards United Nations resolutions, in particular to UN Resolutions 242 and 338. A great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, said about that was entirely apt.
The countries of the Islamic world do not forget that we—America, France and Britain—backed Saddam Hussein when he grabbed oil-rich territory from the Iranians in 1980. Indeed, we did not merely back him; we supplied him with arms and gas. The Iranians lost, it is reckoned, 1 million dead in that eight-year war. We are apt not even to know about that; but they certainly do not forget.
Opinion throughout the world is also, I believe, coming to the view that two wrongs do not make a right, and that the ends do not, even for that great wickedness of 11th September, for ever justify the means. They increasingly perceive the means as being potentially disproportionate between a ragtag Taliban army on the ground and the most sophisticated superpower in the world, which rains "smart bombs"—and not-so-smart bombs—upon Afghans. The gross inequality of arms is mirrored in the gross inequality of casualties. As yet not a single American or other allied serviceman has—thank God—died in this conflict. The roll-call among Afghans—civilians,as well as those in the military—probably runs into the thousands.
I refer noble Lords to a few statistics. Afghanistan is the poorest country in Asia; more than half of its children are under-weight; it has armed conflict in 17 of its 32 provinces; it has 2 million permanently disabled people; and about 7.5 million Afghans will this winter suffer appallingly. Indeed, they reckon, and UNICEF warns, that as many as 100,000 Afghan children could die this winter unless food reaches them. The amount of food reaching the country is less than half the World Food Programme's estimate of their absolutely minimal needs. With winter setting in from the middle of this month until the middle of next April, the time is very short in which to do anything effective. Afghanistan has the largest number of antipersonnel landmines in any country in the world, and the use of cluster bombs—contrary to what was otherwise so splendidly said by the noble Lord, Lord Bach—does not leave civilians untouched and unharmed. At least 10 per cent—probably 15 per cent—of such bombs do not detonate on landing.
80
Save the Children, with a staff of 200, understands what is going on in Afghanistan only too well. I put it to the Government that although it would be highly unconventional to interrupt the bombing campaign—unparalleled, I dare say—we are in an unparalleled situation in this war. The courage that the Prime Minister rightly said that we need to pursue this campaign, and the imagination that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said was an essential component of a successful outcome, would be fully endorsed and employed if we found a way in which to cease the bombing. That would allow at least a few of those 100,000 children to see out the winter. The hearts and minds of the Arab world would take note.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, that the Taliban would use a pause in the bombing to reorganise and re-equip. It would also take the first, second and third lots of food. However, if we negotiate a ceasefire—that must be attempted—the outcome, in terms of the longer, broader aims of influencing an extremely worried and volatile Arab world, could be of enormous benefit.
It is certain that if civilian losses from the bombs and, even more, from starvation and hypothermia, grow as relentlessly as they seem set to do, and if Muslim opinion—and opinion elsewhere—continues to fall away, the pressures in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries could easily become unsustainable. The consequences of that, compared with the hazards and difficulties of a "bombing pause", could be disastrous.
I close by admitting what I began by admitting; namely, that one is not privy to all the relevant facts. It could be that a bombing pause is about to take place. If so, hurray, hurray and hurray. Every day, in our opening Prayers in this place, we have the prayer that says:
"that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee",
we seek the blessings of the Lord. This strange campaign must be begun, continued and ended in justice, like no other campaign in history. That will require courage and imagination.
8 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I do not have the expertise to form a judgment on the military and political strategies being followed in Afghanistan. However, as Chair of Oxfam, which has 120 staff based in Afghanistan, skilled in the distribution of food, I am able to bring to your Lordships' attention our assessment of the deteriorating humanitarian situation in that country and the appalling consequences unless further action is taken to prevent a disaster. I say "further action" because our Government have already taken impressive action to address the humanitarian crisis. I was reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as he has reasserted that a key strand of government policy is to address the humanitarian crisis.
In the current climate of crisis it is hard to ascertain how much food is being delivered into Afghanistan and harder still to determine how much is being

81
distributed into the hands of the needy, because distributing the food is perhaps more difficult than getting it into the country. However, the consensus among UN agencies and other aid agencies working on the ground is clear. For many Afghan people, food has now run out and the new supplies are insufficient to replenish the stocks.
At the start of November a limited amount of new food is entering the country. Winter is closing in. Based on World Food Programme projections and that organisation's analysis of the situation on the ground, Oxfam and other British aid agencies believe that it is now likely that there are approximately 1.7 million people who will be cut off from conventional supply routes during the winter and will run out of food at some point during that period.
A question that is often asked by politicians, by the press and by members of the public is, "How many of those people will die?" Not only is that an impossible question to answer, but it is actually the wrong one to ask. The question that should be asked is: how many people should have to endure the unspeakable suffering that comes with starvation?
In the areas that are particularly short of food and currently inaccessible, we have a good idea of what is happening and will happen to varying degrees. It is a harrowing picture. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has touched on some of the facts that starving people face. Perhaps I can outline the effects that starvation has on the daily lives of starving people. People will beg and borrow what they can, getting into debt as they do so. They will sell their possessions, one by one. Then they will sell their houses piece by piece, finishing with selling the roof beams of their houses. Once those are sold there will be no protection against the Afghan winter. After selling their material possessions, they will begin to sell their children, especially girls, who will be sent out of their household to be married to anyone who makes an offer. Men and women will roam further and further afield to find wild foods, to dig up plants, to eat the roots, to boil up grasses and to eat animal fodder. Such fare lacks vital nutrients and may even be poisonous. Their hair will begin to fall out and skin lesions will become infected easily, turning into sores. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, people will become more vulnerable to disease and infection, especially in the Afghan winter. Of course, the first to die will be the children and the elderly.
There is still time to prevent that fate from befalling many of the 1.7 million people in greatest need. We have two weeks before the first snows are anticipated. That is a window of opportunity that the Afghan people can ill afford us to ignore.
It is clear that there are significant differences across Afghanistan in terms of need and access. Therefore, there are grounds for hoping that a variety of options can be looked at and designed specifically to meet the conditions on the ground. That may require a range of actors negotiating access to different areas of the country and different approaches according to local conditions.
82
There are still thousands of people who can and must be reached by significantly increasing the delivery of food into Afghanistan by land, by airdrops and by airlifts into secure zones. Greater diplomatic pressure is required to ensure that neighbouring countries facilitate trucking into Afghanistan by easing bureaucracy at borders. That is a priority option for zones that are considered accessible and that will require increased efforts by the World Food Programme to move even greater quantities of food into the country than they achieve already.
Given the level of the crisis in some areas, all options for getting the food to needy populations must now be considered. It is time to start the negotiation of safe routes and safe zones for food delivery and airdrops. Some of those issues are not the most effective ways to get food to people. Trucking is better, but as roads become blocked by snow food delivery by air becomes the most practical alternative in some instances. There must be a radical redesign of the packages to include, for example, food that is appropriate to peoples needs and to their religious and cultural beliefs. There must also be much better targeting to specific places.
However, let us not forget that there are other obstacles to the delivery of aid that are more difficult for the international community to address. Even in the zones that are not cut off by winter snows, accessibility for aid workers is severely limited by insecurity. Taliban soldiers and other militias have looted many aid offices. In some parts insecurity is due to a break down of law and order and in other parts it is due to increased fighting between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Continued bombing in most parts of north and central Afghanistan and the use of cluster bombs have created a climate of fear that severely limits the ability of the World Food Programme and other agencies to continue food deliveries. Islamic NGOs that are currently delivering food into the east of the country believe that they could do much more if the fear of truckers could be diminished.
The creation of a humanitarian space would make a great difference. It would enable the international aid agencies to carry out their work effectively. Oxfam, Christian Aid and other agencies are calling for a pause in military action so that food stocks can be replenished. In reviewing the case for such a pause, I am sure that the Government will weigh the prospects of the success of their existing bombing campaign and the damage to such a campaign of a pause in the bombing against the innocent civilians who will die as a result of misdirected bombs and the tens of thousands of civilians who will die of starvation or suffer terribly from it.
Even if the Government decide against a general pause, surely there is a case for a pause in some of the regions where the need is greatest. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in opening the debate that a pause would not make any difference. If one is talking about a pause by itself, that may be correct, but if such a pause could be linked to some arrangement negotiated by the United Nations with the Taliban, who must have an interest in ensuring their innocent civilians do

83
not starve, it must be worth while trying to achieve such an agreement under the auspices of the United Nations. They could help to select specific areas and the timings of such a pause, which could be negotiated by the United Nations. I support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said about a pause. But, of course, the military consequences are not for us at Oxfam or the aid agencies to judge. That is clearly a decision for government.
It should not be forgotten that the Geneva Convention clearly established the obligation of all warring parties to ensure that food and medical supplies reach civilians. Although much has been and is being done by our Government to comply with that obligation, it is clear that if we do nothing further tens of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians will face a winter of unimaginable suffering. Let us remember that these civilians are as much the victims of terrorism as the innocent civilians who died on 11th September.
I had intended to touch upon the importance of combating terrorism in the future by helping to create a better and a fairer world. However, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, in his powerful speech, has spoken so eloquently on this issue that all I want to do is associate myself with what he has said. It is immensely encouraging that our Prime Minister, in his speech to the Labour Party convention earlier this year, committed himself to addressing this critical issue.
Like other noble Lords, I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to the specific question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, on the afternoon of 7th June 1981, 16 fighter planes of the Israeli air force took off from the Negev. They flew north-east for 800 miles, flying low across Jordan and then across Iraq, avoiding detection. Their target was the Osirak nuclear plant in northern Iraq which intelligence had told the Israeli Government was about to go live—a precursor to Iraq having the capability to build its own nuclear bomb. Their mission was completed in 80 seconds, the plant was destroyed and casualties were minuscule.
Of course, the usual suspects had a field day. The Guardian was up in arms, the United Nations passed a resolution and no doubt some noble Lords in your Lordships' House said that it was about time that someone grabbed Israel by the scruff of the neck. They always do. But for the time being the genie was back in its bottle.
Let us consider for a second what would have happened had the Israelis not taken that action. Think about the Gulf war and think about lower Manhattan.
I have a nagging worry that I just cannot get out of my head. It concerns the perpetrators of the events of 11th September. While I do not doubt that bin Laden is fully behind them and that he planned and trained
84
those terrorists, and while I am 100 per cent supportive of the allies' quest to bring him and Al'Qaeda to justice, I am not convinced that he acted alone.
To conceive, plan, train and implement such an act of massive terror requires sophistication and resources that only a state can provide. Today the evidence is sketchy and circumstantial, but there are many sensible people, particularly in America, who see Iraq behind the scenes pulling the strings. If they are right and Saddam is implicated, then we really have even more to fear. Whether Saddam is there or not, we would do well to hear what these people want. They have told us in part, and we really ought to listen very carefully to what they have to say.
First, they want Islamic lands to be free of non-believers. That means no Jews in their definition of Palestine—the land between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean sea. There must be no American forces in Saudi Arabia and no Christians in Pakistan. Their plan is ethnic cleansing writ large. Secondly, they want to rid Arab lands of their moderate rulers and monarchs. Most of all, they want to destroy the great Satan—the United States—and, by implication, us and Europe. They hate our democracy, our open societies, our tolerance, our equality of men and women and even our happiness. They want to destroy everything that we stand for.
On 11th September we saw their opening salvo. We cannot doubt that both bin Laden and Saddam loathe Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. Given half a chance they would overthrow them. The result would be that they would control nearly half the world's oil. Saddam tried that 10 years ago, and we can bet that it is never far from his thinking.
Then there are weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear weapons in particular. Saddam is reportedly very close to having his own nuclear bomb. Pakistan has them and is petrified that the Taliban will capture them. God only knows how much nuclear-grade material has been spirited away from the states of the Soviet Union. Oil and nuclear bombs make a lethal cocktail. We face a frightening situation and we must not drop our guard.
I am horrified by some of the defeatist talk that I read in the newspapers and see on our television. War is not a media circus. People are risking their lives for us and they must have our continuous support through thick and thin, today and tomorrow and for however long it takes. We must also be careful of the dangerous doctrine of equivalence. I have even heard it said in your Lordships' House that the deaths at the World Trade Centre and the unplanned deaths of civilians in Afghanistan caused by allied errors are somehow equivalent. They are not. The former is murder by intent; the latter is death by accident.
The pilot who guides a commercial aircraft into a skyscraper commits the same crime as a young man who walks into a pizza parlour, a disco, a crowded market, or on to a bus and pulls a pin, killing and maiming innocent civilians. A suicide killer is a suicide killer. The pursuit of those who control those killers is

85
equally justified, whether it is us seeking bin Laden or the Israelis seeking the perpetrators of those heinous crimes. Justice is justice.
I am proud to be a supporter of Labour Friends of Israel and I declare an interest. But I am not an unconditional supporter of Israel. I do not much care for Prime Minister Sharon. He has a dubious past and was severely criticised by the Israeli judiciary for his activities in Lebanon. His walk last year on the Temple Mount was inflammatory and no doubt helped spark the intifada. I am totally against Israel continuing to build settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. It is provocative and unnecessary.
But the Israelis make a telling point. This time last year, starting at Camp David and ending in Taba in Sinai, they and the Americans and the Palestinians were in intense negotiations. Out of the blue, Prime Minister Barak offered Arafat an amazing deal—a full Palestinian state that was recognised by Israel. The new state would comprise 97 per cent of the occupied territories. Three per cent was deemed too sensitive, but the new state was to be offered in compensation an equivalent area of land from Israel proper. East Jerusalem would become the capital of Palestine and an imaginative solution was on the cards for both Jew and Arab to share the Temple Mount.
There can be little doubt that the Americans and we Europeans would have offered massive financing to the new state. In short, Arafat was offered the deal of a lifetime—a viable and sustainable Palestinian state—but he turned it down. The Israelis say, "We offered this man just about everything he asked for. Not only does he say no, but he has given the light to a new intifada. Is he the man to lead his country to a noble peace and live side by side with us? Or is he what we always said he was, an ageing terrorist unable to control his people and a man of limited vision who never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity?".
The Israeli voters made their choice. These voters include 1 million Arabs—the only Arabs anywhere who have the franchise. They turfed Barak out and Sharon was in. Now we have one leader who will not and the other cannot.
Our Prime Minister is now putting all his formidable energies and efforts into resurrecting the Middle East peace process. His courage and tenacity are to be applauded. It is not easy for many of us to see our Prime Minister visiting Syria or our Foreign Secretary going to Iran. Both countries are rogue states which have a long history of supporting some of the nastiest terrorist groups on earth. But as the late Prime Minister of Israel, Itzhak Rabin, once said, "You don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies". We support our Prime Minister and wish him every success.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree that the Ehud Barak solution did not take in any settlements in Israel, which he himself condemns?
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, according to everything I have read, all the settlements will go back, except a few.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate today and we have heard two excellent maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Jones. However, it appears that perhaps two debates have been taking place because there seems to have been a juxtaposition. It is neatly summed up by the fact that the debate was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the Minister for defence, and it is to be wound up by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, representing the interests of DfID.
That is one of the great problems which faces the campaign in Afghanistan. On the one hand a military action is being undertaken and on the other there is a humanitarian crisis. Many noble Lords mentioned that today, not least of whom were the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Rea, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
One of the aspects of the humanitarian crises which has been brought home to me by listening to some of the debates is that this one has not been caused by the military action alone. It might well be exacerbated during the winter, but the window of opportunity we are looking at—that is, two weeks before the snows come—is at the end of a long period during which opportunities to supply food to the people of Afghanistan were missed. For the past three years Afghanistan has faced a drought and a civil war has left it with a large population of refugees and displaced persons.
However, it has been ruled by a regime which has exacerbated the problem. I read with horror the fact that even now aid convoys, which are desperately needed, must face a levy and a tax. Indeed, a few months ago we heard stories of NGOs involved in the production of food being expelled and a bakery in Kabul which employed women being forced to close down. The treatment of half the population of Afghanistan—the women—must cause horror to those with liberal ideals or any degree of humanitarian viewpoint.
We on these Benches support the military aspects of the campaign. However, this is a campaign being fought on two fronts. It is being fought in the glare and spotlight of media attention and it is extremely sensitive to the coverage, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, pointed out, is sometimes contradictory. It is difficult for those watching at home because the regime does not have forces fighting in uniform; it is difficult to see who your opponent is and who you are attacking when the one badge of military office appears to be the Kalashnikov.
The issue of bombing has been raised by many noble Lords today and it is one about which we on these Benches have concerns. However, I would not say that we are wobbling, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested we were. The "wobbler" is a term coined by the Sun, which depicted heads on top of jellies. That is simplifying the issue. I believe that the bombing campaign should not be looked at as anything other than a tool. It is a means to an end, not

87
an end in itself. That point was made clearly by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig of Radley.
We are reaching the point at which we may have to consider military intervention on the ground. To what extent that is to take place will be a matter for the military commanders, but one myth must first be exploded. It is that special forces will be able to conduct and complete the campaign. The idea that special forces, by some unknown and mythical powers, will be able to go into the country and topple the Taliban is highly dubious.
Immediate concerns have been raised in the debate and I have only one question to ask the Minister. It relates to aid corridors. If they are to be brought about, I doubt that it will happen while the Taliban is still in power in parts of Afghanistan. I believe that a UN force could go in only with a charter to police a peace. However, one of the problems which has faced many forces within Afghanistan is that of lawlessness. Will the Minister say whether such a force will fall within the UN charter if, when it is policing the corridors acting in a military capacity, it comes under fire from bandits?
The issue of cluster bombs has been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that it would be wrong to deny such weapons if that would put our troops at risk. We on these Benches have real concerns about cluster bombs, especially as a result of the issues raised in Kosovo. I speak particularly of the two British servicemen who lost their lives dealing with unexploded cluster bombs. They are weapons which can be used but we would look to their most effective use. Furthermore, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Phillips, Afghanistan has one of the largest concentrations of landmines, and cluster bombs may add to that problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not accept that the Taliban accepts no charter and no international law and respects no human rights other than the exchange of the dead on the battlefield?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is correct in his assertions. However, I did not believe that I was talking about the UN acting within Taliban-controlled areas. I believe that there will be a real issue of lawlessness after the Taliban has been felled.
I return to the issue of weapons which should not be denied to our troops. Radios are of concern to the Armed Forces; anxieties have been expressed about those issued. I speak with experience. As a member of the Territorial Army, I was attached to a signals regiment whose experience of radios was that you can make them work if you have enough mobile telephones to telephone one another to discover why your radios are not working.
The Territorial Army has been mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and I believe that civil defence is a worthy role for that organisation.
88
However, it should not be its only role because it is full of people with expertise in civilian life that can be useful. Indeed, some TA soldiers were used in the Gulf War—they were almost conscripted into that war. They were members of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The work they undertook was vital.
Our real concern is that a war against terrorism has such a wide base that there is a real danger that other conflicts could be sucked in. I believe that one of the purposes of using planes against the World Trade Centre was to bring about a wide conflict between the West and Islam. That point was also made by bin Laden in one of his notorious press interviews. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield said, that exacerbates the problems in many Muslim countries, including Pakistan and Indonesia, between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian communities.
One issue that the Muslim world views as being connected with Afghanistan is the conflict between Israel and Palestine. That point was raised by many noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that recently the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, has dramatically exceeded what is acceptable in terms of troop movements. It is very unfortunate that a peace deal that might have been acceptable was not implemented. However, the peace deal to which he referred was not the one which Palestinians thought was on the table.
I believe that our Prime Minister has conducted vital diplomatic work in the Middle East. Although there has been talk in the press of disasters, especially in Syria, the fact that the Prime Minister was prepared to go to Syria cannot be under-estimated. I also believe that it is a lesson in realpolitik that it was very unlikely that the President of Syria would sing the Prime Minister's praises during a joint press conference. However, behind the scenes some of the implications of his visit will have gone down extremely well.
As many noble Lords have said, this is not a war between the West and Islam. However, there is a risk of escalation the longer it goes on. So far the Islamic protests as seen on television have taken place mostly in the border areas of Pakistan and been remarkably limited in extent. However, the longer the war goes on the greater the potential that these protests will bring about a far worse conflict.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, this has been a most informative debate, enabling noble Lords to express their concerns about many matters. I am grateful to the Minister for opening the debate and thank him for bringing us up to date with the current situation in such an open and concise way. I should like to emphasise the many points made by my noble friend Lord Howell during his opening remarks from these Benches. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater. I congratulate him on the many informative points that he made in his excellent maiden speech. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blaker for his contribution and very much hope

89
that the Government will address the points that have been made. Perhaps the noble Baroness can do so when she comes to wind up the debate.
I start by repeating the words of my noble friend at the beginning of the debate. We on these Benches give the Government our complete backing on matters relating to Afghanistan, but it is important that no confusion is caused by Ministers and officials when repeating statements that vary from the original text, even slightly. It is right that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our American ally to defeat terrorism wherever it is.
At this stage it is worth reminding your Lordships that we are engaged in this conflict because of the horrific atrocities that bin Laden has committed and because of the aims and capabilities that he and Al'Qaeda still possess. He retains the will and resources to carry out more attacks and atrocities against the USA, the UK and America's allies throughout the world. As is well known, bin Laden and Al'Qaeda use suicide bombers and their aim is to kill as many people as they can and to cause the maximum number of casualties to innocent people, even their own Muslim population.
Al'Qaeda is a terrorist organisation with ties to a global network which carries out meticulous long-term planning and attempts to achieve as many coordinated attacks as possible on the same day. It is engaged in a jihad against the US and its allies; one of its stated aims being the murder of American citizens and attacks on its allies, which includes our country and any of our people working abroad. Bin Laden and the Taliban regime have a close relationship on which both depend for their continued existence. They also share the same religious values and vision. Al'Qaeda provides the Taliban with material, finance and military support and jointly they exploit the drugs trade.
The Taliban regime allows bin Laden to operate whatever remains of his terrorist training camps and other activities from Afghanistan, protects him from outside attacks and protects the drug stockpiles. Bin Laden is not able to operate his terrorist activities without the alliance and support of the Taliban regime, and the strength of the Taliban would be seriously weakened without bin Laden's military and financial support.
It is from these facts that the immediate aims and the military objectives have been derived. It is essential that we destroy bin Laden and the functions of the Taliban who depend on each other so much. These aims and objectives were clearly set out by the Minister in his opening remarks and in previous debates, and at the end of a long debate I shall not go through them again. However, to achieve the promulgated aims it is worth reminding your Lordships that the specific military objectives are to destroy the terrorist camps, to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for bin Laden and Al'Qaeda and to enable us to mount future operations in Afghanistan.
We are now in the fourth week of this campaign and we should all be proud of our achievements so far. I fail to understand why the media do not place greater
90
emphasis on the achievements. Nine terrorist training camps have been destroyed. That has prevented the terrorists carrying out further training. Some 40 military installations have been destroyed and many more damaged, and any replacements will be destroyed in the same way. Armoured vehicles, 150 military vehicles, including 50 artillery pieces, and many stores have been destroyed. Thus, the first military objective has been achieved.
Recent military action has switched to the front line, which assists the Northern Alliance and further increases the pressure on the Taliban. The Taliban regime still supports bin Laden, so the second objective has not yet been achieved. There are, however, signs that defections are taking place.
The third military objective has been achieved, in that the conditions have been created for future operations in Afghanistan. I believe that the bombing of the Taliban is essential if we are to minimise the risk to our own ground troops prior to their deployment. However, although conditions have been created for future operations, no realistic ground activities can take place without accurate, reliable and timely intelligence. In the previous debate I asked the Minister whether a massive injection of funds could be provided for intelligence operations. I ask the noble Baroness to address that point in her summing up and to reassure the House. Future operations of the type envisaged in Afghanistan will not be successful without the correct intelligence. I have noted carefully what the noble and gallant Lords have said and I ask the Government also to take that into account.
I now turn to the humanitarian aspects of the tragic situation in Afghanistan. Many of your Lordships have, quite rightly, drawn great attention to this appalling situation. Much has been made of the need for a pause in the bombing to allow food and aid agencies to deliver stores, clothing and food.
There has been reference to the need for a pause in the bombing during Ramadan. A pause in the bombing will not make it any easier to deliver aid. It will only be to the advantage of the Taliban, which will be able to regroup, recover and rest. The military campaign is not the factor that is causing difficulties to the aid programme. It is the Taliban which is preventing aid going to where it is needed. If there was a pause in the bombing, that might encourage the Taliban to attack the food convoys. Even now it has control of the 1,600 tonnes of food in the World Food Programme warehouse at Kandahar. Temporarily stopping bombing would be a serious and grave mistake.
It was announced in the other place last week that a route for aid has been opened up at Chaman and that the United Kingdom will contribute £600,000. That should increase food deliveries to Afghanistan by some 9,000 tonnes during the next two months. However, within the next two months winter will arrive. I ask the Minister whether the route will be open in time to deliver this food.
It is important to take note of the situation in Pakistan. I very much agree with the noble Lord. Lord Weatherill, that Pakistan should be brought back into

91
the Commonwealth. General Musharraf in Pakistan is showing immense courage in his agreement to cooperate with the United States, including the opening of Pakistani air space to US military flights; the sharing of intelligence and the use of the airfields at Jacobabad and Pasni for emergency operations. The Pakistani authorities have had to make strenuous efforts to contain widespread expressions of discontent within the country. There have been large and violent protests in Quetta and in some of the border towns. If General Musharraf is overthrown and Pakistan destabilised and controlled by the Taliban, it would be in possession of nuclear forces facing India with the Kashmir dispute unresolved. We should be grateful for General Musharraf's assistance and his firmness in dealing with the dissent in his own country.
Before I conclude I shall comment on the media. I am aware that there are many brave correspondents from television and from the newspapers who subject themselves to much danger, reporting facts accurately from the front line. However, there are other commentators, reporters and editors, who undermine the confidence of the British people by painting pictures of gloom and despondency, which can only help the Taliban propaganda war. The media know better than most that this will probably be a long conflict, but at the moment some of them appear to be displaying an uncontrolled impatience at the action being taken and are consistently criticising policy. Surely they should concentrate more on the successes of this campaign and spend less time knocking the system.
In conclusion, let us not forget that bin Laden started this conflict. It is right that we should destroy him and his Al'Qaeda network. There is no substitute for victory if the world is to be free from terrible attacks on innocent people. I believe that these first four weeks of the campaign have been successful. Two of the three military objectives have been achieved, and by persisting with bombing the Taliban front-line troops more defections will take place, and support for, and the fighting ability of, bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda will decrease.
However, although we have created the conditions for future military operations, including the use of ground troops, without sufficient numbers and without accurate, reliable and timely intelligence it would be unwise to start a large-scale ground operation, which eventually will have to take place.
We owe a great debt to our men and women of the Armed Forces, who are prepared to make the final sacrifice of laying down their lives for their country. Let us make sure that they are properly trained and equipped. It is our duty to support and look after them.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will comment on the
92
unanimous view of the aid agencies present in Afghanistan on the bombing pause. The noble Lord seemed to discount everything that they say.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I understand that such a pause in the bombing would not make any difference to how those agencies are able to distribute the food. It is the Taliban which is preventing the food being distributed.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, today's debate has been wide ranging. It has been characterised by the knowledge, experience and expertise which has been a feature of debates on this subject in this House.
We had two notable maiden speeches. I am sure that the whole House will benefit from the wisdom and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, and of my noble friend Lord Jones. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, set out very clearly the complexity of the issue and, in particular, the difficulty of trying to balance the values and principles which we hold dear, including a commitment to openness and communication and the need to keep the element of surprise in terms of our military strategy.
My noble friend Lord Jones reminded us of the importance and depth of our relationship with the United States. He also made insightful comments about our intelligence services. The House looks forward to hearing more from both noble Lords.
In the time available it is difficult for me to do justice to the range of issues which have been raised today. I intend to concentrate on four key themes; first, the humanitarian situation; secondly, our political objectives; thirdly, the conflict in the Middle East; and, fourthly, the military action. If time permits I shall try to address some of the specific points which have been raised. But I undertake to write to noble Lords if there are any specific questions which I am unable to address.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan pre-dated the military action. At least 12 million of the 26 million estimated Afghan population were severely or moderately affected as a direct result of three years of drought on top of over two decades of conflict. Over 3 million people were receiving food assistance from the World Food Programme. Famine conditions were being reported in several districts in the western region, in the north east and in the central highlands. Severe malnutrition among children and, in some cases, famine-related deaths had also been recorded. Conflict and drought have generated over 4 million refugees, 2 million in Pakistan, 1.5 million in Iran and 0.5 million elsewhere in the region and beyond. Since the summer of 2000 some 700,000 to 900,000 people became newly displaced within Afghanistan and approximately 370,000 sought refuge in Pakistan and Iran.
As was made clear by my noble friend Lord Bach in his opening speech, the humanitarian effort is of equal importance to the military effort. That point has been

93
endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and other noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, with his extensive experience, spoke of the difficulties of food distribution. The humanitarian situation remains fragile. There has been a steady increase in food dispatched to Afghanistan since mid October. However, a few good days does not represent a sustained trend. We are still short of WFP's target of 1,700 tonnes a day. There is a desperate need to sustain any increase by capitalising on recent progress. We need to do better.
The UNHCR and the Pakistan authorities estimate that 110,000 Afghans may have crossed into Pakistan since 11th September. Thousands more are gathered at the border. We are urging all Afghanistan's neighbours to open the borders and give safe passage to people fleeing from Afghanistan. The World Food Programme is also looking to open up new land routes and to finding new ways of providing food. It is considering the possibility of air-dropping supplies into those areas of Afghanistan which shortly will be cut off by snow.
My noble friend Lord Desai referred to the way in which the Taliban works against the welfare of its own citizens, as did the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I regret to inform the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, that we are dealing with a brutal regime. The Taliban continues to hinder the efforts of the aid agencies. Reports have been received over recent days about how the Taliban has been looting and vandalising UN agency buildings and NGO offices, as well as taking vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, mentioned the fact that the Taliban still has control of the WFP warehouse in Kandahar. This is not a regime that is interested in looking after its own people.
The WFP has signed agreements with NGOs to distribute food throughout the country. That will enable it to bypass hubs in urban areas and thus deliver supplies directly to the rural regions. That point was raised by my noble friend Lady Turner. We have agreed to contribute £600,000 to help finance a joint collaborative effort with the WFP and the Russian Government to increase food deliveries from Tajikistan to north-east Afghanistan over the next few weeks. Operational details are still being finalised, but the result of the joint UK/UN/Russian effort will be the delivery of a further 9,000 tonnes of food to Afghanistan over the coming two months. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked specifically when the new route will be opened. I can tell the noble Lord that we expect it to be operational by 10th November.
Pakistan continues to provide the main route for food supplies into Afghanistan. The WFP has reported that over recent weeks nearly 7,500 tonnes of supplies have been delivered through Turkmenistan.
My noble friend Lord Rea argued for a pause in the bombing and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, raised the matter in the context of dealing with the humanitarian situation. The removal of the Taliban, which is necessary to secure our objectives of bringing
94
bin Laden to justice and closing down Al'Qaeda's headquarters in Afghanistan, is absolutely necessary if the people of that country are to have any hope for the future. Bombing is always to be regretted, but it is essential to the interests of the people of Afghanistan that we carry through our efforts to success. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, might be interested to learn that a spokesperson for the WFP stated on 21st October that:
"One has to remember that working in Afghanistan has always been difficult, before September 11th as well as after. I am not convinced that we would be able to bring more food in if the bombing halted".
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about humanitarian aid corridors. The problem is precisely that raised by the noble Lord; that is, it is not clear who would be responsible for policing, as it were, aid corridors in the situation currently pertaining in Afghanistan. We need to maximise our opportunities for the delivery of assistance, but aid corridors would be difficult to maintain and would require the presence of substantial numbers of troops on the ground.
Perhaps I may turn to the political situation. The people of Afghanistan have suffered terribly over many years. Outside powers have interfered and weakened their state. The failed state has resulted in civil war, famine and gross misgovernment by a brutal regime that twists and distorts the teachings of Islam. Bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda network are based in Afghanistan for precisely those reasons.
In response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I think it is important to make absolutely clear the Government's position. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has set out four key principles for the future of Afghanistan. They match the elements set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his contribution, and are as follows: first, that the Afghan people must determine their own destiny; secondly, that the international community should form a coalition to help in that process, a point which was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Plant; thirdly, that the UN should play a leading role in any transition— I shall return to that point in due course; and, lastly, that resources should be devoted to complete the task.
My noble friend Lord Judd asked specifically about the shape of any future government. We consider that it is for the people of Afghanistan to decide, but we believe that it must be broad based and representative of all the ethnic groups. It must command broad consent among those whom it governs and move from being a regime to become a government. We see the role of the UN as facilitating, but not imposing, a solution. There is a collective desire to work with the Afghan people to bring Afghanistan back into the family of nations. For the first time, a strong international coalition is seeking to sustain a political process, providing humanitarian relief and committed to rebuilding the country and its institutions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and other noble Lords, that this can come about only as part of a long-term strategy. Let there be no mistake: it is one which includes the present military action.

95
The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Sandberg, as well as other noble Lords, raised the role of the UN in terms of planning for the future. Ambassador Brahimi, the UN Special Representative for Afghanistan, is working on a plan for a replacement, broad-based government in Afghanistan which would be representative of the people and ready to co-operate with the international community. The world is united in support of his efforts. I say to my noble friend Lord Judd, who asked specifically about the need for the UN to be resourced properly in order to carry out this task, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced last Thursday in another place that the UK is making available £1 million to Ambassador Brahimi. Under his leadership, the UN is convening as wide a representative group of Afghan opinion as possible. When the present Taliban regime falls, as it surely must, a broad-based successor regime should be ready to take its place. Only then can we hope to tackle the huge political, humanitarian and reconstruction challenges facing the Afghan people. We shall not fail them. The international community will provide the resources, expertise and determination to ensure that Afghanistan recovers.
My noble friend Lord Mitchell raised the possible role of Iraq. I shall say to my noble friend that we are not speculating on the involvement of anyone other than Osama bin Laden in the 11th September terrorist attacks on the United States.
The noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Vivian, referred specifically to Pakistan. We applaud Pakistan's decision to back international action against terrorism. Pakistan is a valuable ally. Its decision to support the coalition has served to strengthen our bilateral relationship. As regards the question of sanctions against Pakistan, I think it would be helpful if I set out the position as it stands. The UK never did impose any formal sanctions against Pakistan after the 1998 nuclear tests or after the coup in 1999. However, constraints are imposed by the UK Export Licensing Regime and applications from all countries, including Pakistan, will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against our national criteria and the EU code of conduct.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield asked about the persecution of Christian minorities and the human rights situation in Pakistan. We are very concerned about the situation of religious minorities in Pakistan and were horrified to learn of the killing of Christians over the weekend. While there is no systematic or government-led persecution of minorities in Pakistan, extremists and sectarian groups have been responsible for violence and intimidation across the country. We will continue to urge the Pakistani Government to take tough action against such groups, bring them to justice and take steps to protect all minorities from further harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and other noble Lords have raised the need to influence public opinion, including in the Islamic world. There can be no doubting the need to win hearts and minds.
96
Ministers have briefed and will continue to brief the Arab and Muslim press. Officials have appeared on Arab satellite channels speaking in Arabic because we feel that we have a good message and that we need to get that message across. Let us not forget that Arab and Gulf states were among the first to condemn the recent attacks.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, my noble friend Lord Judd, the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, my noble friend Lord Hardy, the noble Lords, Lord Blaker, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Plant, and my noble friend Lord Mitchell spoke about the conflict in the Middle East. The continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is one of the leading causes of instability in the Middle East. It fuels frustration, fear and mistrust on both sides and is an easy cover for extremists to hide behind. A swift, just and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, therefore, essential because of its wider significance.
Progress towards a permanent peace settlement is important in its own right. The suffering of the peoples of the region caused by years of conflict and hatred is reason enough for the international community to renew its contribution to peace efforts. We are doing just that. Britain has been a long-standing friend of both Israel and the Palestinian people in their search for peace. We have devoted great energy to the Mitchell report and the Tenet accords and we have stepped up our engagement recently. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister travelled to the region last week. He re-emphasised the importance of action by both Israelis and Palestinians to help to create an atmosphere of security and trust, and offered Britain's continued support to those who are willing to take the necessary steps for peace. He is following up those talks with a visit to Washington on Wednesday. I welcome the recognition around the House of the important role that he has played in building the international consensus.
Let me now turn to the military action. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, made a plea for better communication of our objective. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, mentioned the importance of military action in support of the political effort. The struggle against international terrorism will be long and multi-faceted, embracing diplomatic, financial, economic and humanitarian aspects as well as the military. Its aim is to secure the twin goals of justice and security. Our immediate objectives are fourfold: to bring bin Laden and Al'Qaeda to justice; to prevent bin Laden and Al'Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat; to ensure that Afghanistan verifiably ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism and terrorist training camps; and, assuming that Mullah Omar does not comply, we require sufficient change in the leadership to ensure that Afghanistan's links with international terrorism are broken.

97
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, referred to our military objectives, which are threefold: to destroy the terrorist camps; to pressurise the Taliban to end its support for bin Laden; and to enable us to mount future operations in Afghanistan. My noble friend Lord Bach indicated our success against each of those objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked why cluster bombs were being used. They are used when they are the most appropriate weapon for the target concerned. I can assure the noble Lord that the coalition has not used them indiscriminately. It is important to remind the House that the use of cluster bombs is legal and that they have been used only against legitimate military targets.
My noble friend Lord Judd raised a number of questions relating to the coalition's targeting policy. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am not able at this point to discuss in detail the methods by which the coalition selects bombing targets. However, I can assure the House that neither the Afghan civilian population nor their homes or properties have been targeted. We are extremely rigorous in selecting only targets that are directly associated with Osama bin Laden, Al'Qaeda or the Taliban military infrastructure. We are always extremely sensitive to the object of minimising civilian casualties. I should like to reassure my noble friend that we always act in accordance with international law in our military operations.
My noble friend Lady Turner spoke powerfully about the impact of the bombing and about civilian casualties. We know that military action inevitably places civilians at risk, but we try to reduce those risks to the absolute minimum. As I said, our targeting processes are rigorous. We attack only the legitimate targets of terrorists and military forces and installations, and then only with the weapons that are right for the job. Sadly, mistakes can happen and we very much regret them.
The question of the role of the Territorial Army in the current situation was raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I should like to stress that the Government are fully aware of the value of our reserve forces. Some 150 personnel have already been called out on an individual volunteer basis to fill posts where they hold specialist skills and experience. Others will be used if that is appropriate. It would be helpful to remind the House that in the former Yugoslavia, for example, some 10 per cent. of UK forces deployed since 1995 have been reservists.
My noble friend Lord Judd, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, sought assurances about the Government's intentions with respect to military and humanitarian action and, in particular, the co-ordination of that action. We have urged the UN to establish a mechanism in Islamabad to ensure that the necessary links are in place to deconflict humanitarian and military activities. Currently this is being done at headquarters level, although ad hoc information exchange is taking place in the region. We expect to see these mechanisms
98
formalised soon. In the meantime, we are making every effort, together with our US colleagues, to ensure that the humanitarian situation is well understood by military planners.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may quickly answer three specific questions. The noble Lords, Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Vivian, asked about funding for the intelligence agencies. Ministers have recognised that SIS, the security service and GCHQ have a vital part to play in countering terrorism. They have approved in principle the allocation of additional funds to these agencies to allow them to increase their efforts against terrorist targets without withdrawing too many resources from high priority areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked specifically about drugs. UN figures show that Afghanistan is the source of about 75 per cent of the world's heroin; and about 90 per cent of the heroin on the streets in the UK originates in Afghanistan. Illicit drug production doubled in the three years after the Taliban took control. In July last year, the Taliban effectively banned opium poppy cultivation, but it did not ban stockpiling and trafficking. We are committed to strengthening drug control in the region. I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to cut off access to funding through this route.
The noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Blaker, talked about the importance of supporting the BBC. We have provided £200,000 to the BBC World Service Trust, which is the charitable arm of the BBC World Service, for live line information and education programming in Afghanistan and the region.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, for his positive comments and support. I agree with him that it is important to win the battle in Afghanistan. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, said that there are unavoidable, uncomfortable political challenges. We all recognise the complexity of the challenges that face us in relation to these issues, but we must hold to our resolve and we are determined to succeed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Recidivism
9.11 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to reduce prisoner recidivism.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we recall the discussion introduced recently in this House on our Prison Service by my noble friend Lord Hurd. It was an excellent debate which revealed a strong measure of agreement.
We must work together to reduce the prison population and its high percentage component of reoffenders. In so doing, we cannot succumb to certain forms of political muddle-headedness which, in the past, have frequently prevented progress. On the ground and within the service, we must guard against

99
and control bureaucracy, lack of vision and self-interest where, unnecessarily, these features strive to hold out against change.
There is also consensus, I believe, that no constructive purpose will be served through party political wrangling or jockeying for position. Previous mistakes, made when in office by both the Labour and Conservative parties over prison policy, have co-existed, if ironically so, with well-meaning intentions and, quite often, with the implementation of sensible short-term expedients. Yet, broadly speaking, the mistakes and failures of both political administrations have derived from an apparent unwillingness or inability to form proper long-term plans which can then be carried out with patience and determination.
Let us now hope and assume that the latter approach can at last become adopted. If that is the case, not least is it fitting to pay tribute to again today, and to thank—which was done during my noble friend's debate by many of your Lordships—certain key public servants. They include the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, Mr Martin Nearey, the Director-General of the Prison Service for England and Wales, and Sir David Ramsbotham, recently retired Chief Inspector of English Prisons. Their combined advocacy of the urgent need for reform has been as powerful as it has been unequivocal. To this list, I should like to add the current Chief Inspector of the Scottish Prison Service, Mr Clive Fairweather, who has been no less energetic and adamant in speaking out for this priority.
The specific focus and Question this evening is prisoner reoffending and what steps the Government are taking to reduce it. The first anomaly concerns value for money when our own Prison Service is compared with others elsewhere. While we spend less than our European partners on health and education, we spend much more on prisons. Yet, at 75 per cent, our own prisoner recidivism level has not lowered as a result of increased expenditure. Nor has it become any lower than the European average.
Secondly, there is the anomalous relationship between custodial and non-custodial sentences. We have seen the introduction and steady application of non-custodial sentences. Yet not only have these failed to effect a proper reduction in custodial sentences; they have even co-existed with a large growth in the number of custodial sentences and with a large rise in the number of prisoners—from 46,000 in 1991 to roughly 67,000 at present, with a predicted figure of 83,000 by the year 2008.
In spite of the availability of non-custodial sentences, there are still far too many both below and above the age of 17 who are in prison for minor crimes and who should not have been imprisoned at all. In particular, it is still the case that far too many young people are detained. In the majority of cases, the detention of young people is as futile as it is counter-productive.
Then, paradoxically enough, there is even the worrying anomaly, or at any rate its future prospect, which relates to the pursuit of much better practice.
100
Recently, the Government appear to have expressed all the right sentiments. Within prisons they seek to address systematically the task of rehabilitation. Their aims include better education, improved employability and reduced drug dependency. Yet such schemes will work properly only if the number of prisoners is reduced; otherwise, resources will remain too overstretched for prison staff to fulfil those objectives.
The Minister has commented previously that the Prison Service, in conjunction with the National Probation Service, has been set a target by the Government; namely, to reduce the rate of re-convictions of all offenders punished by imprisonment or by community supervision by 5 per cent by April 2004. He has also commented, quite properly, that to the extent that sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, the Government cannot set targets for reducing the prison population.
Nevertheless, there is the recent government publication, Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead, published jointly by the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Attorney-General's Office. Many noble Lords will wish to support the paper. Its concept is that every part of the existing system, from detention, prosecution and punishment to the resettlement of prisoners, will be subject to reform and co-ordination.
Does the Minister agree that the Government's plans for improved prisoner rehabilitation and a reduction in the rates of recidivism, while much to be welcomed, will nevertheless fail unless they correspond to convincing targets for a reduction in prisoner numbers? However, secondly, does he acknowledge that owing to its focus on co-ordination and reform, such targets can now begin to be structured within a scheme of implementation for the Government's paper, Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead?
Thirdly, and following from this, will the Minister concur that one of the best weapons for dealing with intransigence and bureaucracy within the Prison Service is just such a radically enhanced degree of common purpose within the various parts of the criminal justice service? A topical and very recent example of intransigence within the Prison Service concerns the Kainos programme. In recent years, this programme has produced encouraging results. Regarding reduced prisoner reoffending, arguably it has even indicated better results than any other prisoner scheme or process. Nevertheless, there is now a move within the Prison Service to wind it up. Will the Minister look into the matter, with a view to preventing that outcome? I imagine that he would agree that the thing to do with any prisoner scheme which is more successful than some others is not to propose to wind it up, but instead to plan to extend it.
Another important theme is the scope for improvement that can arise out of comparisons between our own Prison Service and that in other countries. The focus must be on evidence of what works best in the form of measures to deter crime and to promote security through improved rehabilitation and reduced reoffending.
Curiously enough, and in spite of their recent civil war, certain states in the former Yugoslavia already reveal encouraging prison management results, which in several respects stand to give good guidance to ourselves and to other European states. Two such are Slovenia and Croatia. The Croatian prison service provides a clear example. It has comparatively low numbers of prisoners per head of population, and it demonstrates comparatively high levels of civilian prisoner rehabilitation. As chairman of the UK Parliamentary Group for Croatia and as a Council of Europe parliamentarian, I was able to introduce our own Home Office overseas service to the Croatian prison service. This has led to the establishment of a training centre by Zagreb for the training of prison governors and other staff.
Clearly, there are many constructive channels for disseminating improved practice between different states for the better management of their prisons. I am well aware that the Minister is in favour of such exchanges. However, does he agree that we should start to evaluate the methods and results from other prison services much more acutely than we have done up until now? We should seek to do so not least because our own record has been as disappointing as it has.
In summary, the key challenges presented by prisons to the Government are plain: to reduce prisoner reoffending, and thus prisoner numbers, and to enhance prisoner rehabilitation and hence improve community morale and security. The Government must acknowledge the many deficiencies and anomalies which still obtain. They must tackle bureaucracy and self-interest within the service. They must adjust by heeding evidence and case studies; and they must set a much more responsible example and produce radically better results within this country and its communities and for the benefit of others elsewhere.
9.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for securing the debate and for so eloquently raising pertinent issues which I have no doubt will shape our interventions today.
Exactly 170 years ago on this night, the bonfires of England burned the effigies not of Guy Fawkes but of the Church of England's bishops who had been responsible in this House for throwing out the reform Bill. The old jingle,
"Remember, remember,
the 5th of November",
was that year changed to,
"Remember, remember, that God is the sender
of every good gift known to man.
But the devil to spite us
sent fellows in mitres
who rob us of all that they can".
Since 1831 no bishops' effigies have ever again been burned on bonfires—so no recidivism there! But perhaps that is because the Churches have taken a serious part in helping to prevent recidivism and especially prisoner reoffending.
102
The latest available figures for prisoner recidivism reveal some startling facts. Fifty-eight per cent of all prisoners released in 1997 were reconvicted within two years. Within this overall figure there is a variation with different categories of original offence. Perhaps more worrying are the statistics for younger people. Seventy-six per cent of males under 21, 58 per cent of females under 21, 50 per cent of females over 21 and 54 per cent of males over 21 reoffended.
Recent research has shown that three issues have a major influence on how newly released prisoners react to their situation back in the community: secure housing, a job and close family relationships all enable former inmates to settle back into the community without falling again into crime.
I am aware of this from my own experience with inmates at Wakefield and New Hall Prisons. Furthermore, those very issues are the focus for the work of an ecumenical network formed this summer called the Churches Criminal Justice Forum. It is working in two specific areas. First, it is tackling the problem of recidivism by employing two officers full time, thanks to the generosity of the Salvation Army. These officers work at developing community chaplaincy or community resettlement. This concept was established in Canada a decade ago. There are now 50 such projects there. By bringing together education provision, healthcare, housing and employment the chances of an offender becoming a law-abiding citizen become much higher. None of this takes away the work of the Probation Service, which is happy to work in partnership with the voluntary scheme in Canada (where the probation service is called the Correctional Service).
In England, the Churches Criminal Justice Forum is now developing three such local projects in Swansea, Gloucester and Blackburn, where the task of the development workers is to help by pointing to signs of good practice, encouraging volunteering programmes and much more. The local prison governors are keenly supportive. I believe that it is important that the Home Office Active Community Unit gives as much support to this scheme as possible and that, as in Canada, it grows to be an effective way of preventing recidivism.
A second issue in relation to recidivism is that the present reliance, both on the extensive use of custody and on the traditional use of punishment, needs to be questioned. The Halliday Report on sentencing, Making Punishments Work, shows that sentences have increased substantially in the past decade, yet the rates of recidivism have also increased. It is because of this, and because of the feeling of victims that their needs are being ignored, that there has been great interest recently in restorative justice.
Recent research from the Youth Justice Board, especially in Thames Valley Constabulary, shows that the rate of reoffending falls dramatically if new forms of restorative justice are used for young people. It is for this reason that the Church's Criminal Justice Forum is now about to appoint a restorative justice worker, thanks to a generous grant from a trust fund. The aim of the work will be to involve church people in

103
restorative justice projects, thus hopefully helping to reduce crime and to improve the treatment of both victims and offenders.
I have mentioned two examples of how the Churches are involved in reducing reoffending, but let me mention a third example, which is to do with sex offending. Led by the Quakers, there is another scheme, which again began in Canada and is now being piloted in this country. It consists of providing support from a circle of people committed to helping a released sex offender into the community. Such a person of course remains under the supervision of the probation service and the multi-agency protection panels, and that involves the police. However, the additional support of trained volunteers, often from the Churches, can add to helping greatly in preventing relapses. The Home Office Dangerous Offenders Unit has welcomed this move. It is in an early stage; the proposed pilot schemes remain confidential, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, it is another example of how the Churches are able to contribute.
In my own diocese the Christian-based Langley House Trust has an impressive record. Over the past year none of its clients has reoffended. Here I talk of ordinary prisoners and ordinary crimes rather than sex offences. It achieves this by looking carefully at the risks that its clients present and by providing a level of care that offers the best chance of not reoffending. Again—and this is always very important—the trust works closely with the probation service, with the police and with qualified social workers and staff with psychiatric training.
When this Christian-based trust tried to open two similar houses in London, I regret to say that crowds gathered outside and fierce opposition was voiced, based on an unjustified fear of the type of former offenders who might be clients of the trust.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also mentioned the Kainos Community, taking its title from the Greek word meaning "new beginnings", which my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, will remember well from our Greek classes together. The community has been working in four prisons over the past few years. I understand that a recent study into the effectiveness of its work, based on Christian principles, has proved inconclusive. I have not seen that study myself, and I would be interested to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the noble Earl on that point.
It is nevertheless true that the press coverage of the Kainos Community has served to highlight what I and the noble Earl have been seeking to emphasise in mentioning Kainos tonight: that in seeking to reduce prisoner recidivism, mainstream Churches in particular have a significant spiritual part to play.
Unfortunately that work and the work of others in helping prisoners not to reoffend is undermined when the prison regime itself is so bound by budgetary constraints that, as has happened in the past few years, the level of humanitarian, educational and spiritual content within prison life has to be reduced. I very much hope that in his winding-up speech the noble
104
Lord, Lord Rooker, will be supportive of the efforts of Churches and others in preventing recidivism, but I also dare to hope that he may have some encouraging message to give us about improved resources within the Prison Service to enable us, be we statutory or voluntary, to work together far more effectively to prevent prisoners from reoffending.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I join the right reverend Prelate in thanking my noble friend for introducing this timely and important debate.
The huge growth of the prison population over the past 20 years, to which he drew your Lordships' attention, is an indictment of governments of both parties over that period. As a Minister responsible for the Prison Service for three years during the 1980s I share that responsibility. Since leaving office I have contributed my own small effort to reduce that growth by reducing the number of youngsters who are drawn into crime. Had it been the Government, not me and my friends, who had concentrated their efforts and their money on achieving that objective, I do not doubt that the growth in numbers would have been dramatically reversed. However, we have to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be, and our debate is about those who become criminals and the small proportion of them who have been caught, convicted and given prison sentences.
The purpose of imprisonment is not only, or even chiefly, to punish offenders; it is the protection of the rest of society. Merely keeping an offender off the streets until he has to be released to offend again does not amount to anything like effective protection. You do not have to have the humanitarian interest in the welfare of prisoners that I am sure the Minister shares with others in the Government to see that rehabilitation—which is shorthand for the conversion of offenders into honest citizens—is essential if our citizens are to have any kind of effective protection.
So what you do with prisoners during their sentences is of prime interest to anyone who wants to protect the public and, therefore, to the public as well. Most prisoners are young males under 35, full of energy and ambition. That energy must be used to constructive effect—to educative effect—or it will burn out any remaining good will the prisoner might have had towards society, let alone authority, and he will be a more vicious and more effective criminal than when he was arrested.
Providing purposeful activity for all these people is the very minimum requirement that any rehabilitation should offer. That means accommodation and staffing sufficient to have them active and out of cell for at least the equivalent of a working day, not five but seven days a week. What are we achieving? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that we manage about 23 or 24 hours per prisoner per week. That is less than four hours a day of purposeful activity. Imagine what that would do to your Lordships' morale at our advanced stage of life when we are accustomed to taking things steadily and reflectively, particularly

105
after lunch. On prison fare and at the age of most prisoners it would be destructive. Neither the staffing nor the accommodation is adequate.
A Written Answer by the Minister in another place on 16th October gave figures only for individual prisons. If my arithmetic is correct, which it may well not be, at the end of August over 10,000 prisoners were held in pairs, each sharing a cell designed to hold only one prisoner, and nearly 500 were held in threes, sharing cells designed for two.
What is the result of all this? If the aim of the Prison Service is to protect the public by preventing reoffending, what is its success rate? My noble friend has suggested a figure of 25 per cent. The right reverend Prelate suggested 40 per cent. I suspect—or hope—that the truth is nearer to the right reverend Prelate's estimate, but even so it is not brilliant. It is better than 20 years ago, but nothing like enough.
Think what the effect would be if the proportions of those who reoffend and those who do not were reversed. The number of reconvicted returners would be dramatically cut, resources would become dramatically more sufficient and the regimes dramatically more effective and there would be an exponential effect on reducing recidivism further.
Of course, the rehabilitation of prisoners does not end with their release. Throwing a convict out through the gate into the world with no idea what to do or where to go, next to no money in his pocket, no prospect of a job and no one to turn to for advice will produce desperation within 24 hours and make robbery the natural means of survival in 48. The right reverend Prelate has given striking examples of what can be done. I endorse in passing his support for restorative justice, though I shall not elaborate on that. I saw the early stages of the Thames Valley experiment and believe the idea to be exceedingly encouraging and well suited to the state that our society has got itself into. No doubt the Minister will deal with all that in his reply.
In my few minutes I shall concentrate on what happens in prison. If only someone could find a programme that reduced reoffending by 20 or 30 per cent, even at modest extra cost, it would effectively save the Prison Service and the taxpayer a significant amount. It would mean a huge increase in the efficiency of the Prison Service and a welcome increase in the protection offered to the public. How we would welcome it.
The extraordinary thing is that such a programme exists—it has been mentioned twice in the debate already. It has been tried out in four prisons and I am told that it reduces reoffending not by 20 or 30 per cent, but by nearly 40 per cent. The even more extraordinary thing is that on the eleventh of last month, the director of resettlement wrote to the chairman of the trustees of the programme and told him that, following careful consideration, the Prison Service Management Board had decided that it must be closed down by March next year.
106
The Kainos programme—I always thought that words ending in "os" were singular, so "Kainoi" would mean new beginnings, but my Greek is rusty— has been running in the Verne prison. Can the Minister confirm that following its introduction, the number of prisoners brought before the governor for discipline from D wing, where the programme was running, fell as reported in the press, from about 200 annually to just 13 last year? Surely even that result must have reduced the cost and difficulty of running the prison significantly. Can the Minister tell us the recidivism or reoffending rates in the year before the programme was introduced and last year? I tried to give him notice of that last question, albeit rather late in the day, so I hope that it reached him. What were the equivalent figures for Swaleside, Highpoint North and Highpoint South? If the Minister can refine that answer to the wings in which the programme was working, the indication of its efficacy will be much greater. If he cannot, I shall remain dubious of the board's decision, because it must have had that information before deciding whether the programme was effective.
What were the reasons for this apparently extraordinary decision by the board, which certainly seems to have gone into the matter carefully? Were those reasons really as stated in the second paragraph of the director's letter of 11th October to the chairman? The letter said that the board,
"did not wish, as a matter of policy, to provide public money, either locally or centrally, to support religiously based offender programmes in prisons. Nor did it wish Kainos to continue in its present form. It recognised that religious groups had, and would continue, to provide a valuable contribution to prison life, but it was particularly concerned about the appropriateness of intensive religiously based interventions in prisons".
If they were, can he say whether he, the director and the board that made this decision accept that, as stated by the chairman of Kainos in his reply, less than 10 per cent of the courses had any religious content whatever?
Where, then, does that leave us? Only the other day we debated religious freedom in this very Chamber. Is it not to be permitted or even supported in our prisons? Rumour has it—it is rumour, but the noble Lord may be able to kill it tonight and that would be a very good thing—that this is the result of pressure from other religious groups. It is said that the Christian religion receives favourable treatment in prisons. Surely the proper way to address that problem is not to reduce the benefits to Christians but to increase the benefits to others; otherwise, it seems to me that this decision will be entirely destructive and most regrettable.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure your Lordships about this matter. I also hope that he will bring about a review of the decision before March, which is when Kainos must wind down. The earlier that such a review takes place, the better. In my time, I have chaired a charity and I know the desperate difficulty of reassuring people who can see the end of the line when their employment will cease and the will have to find other employment. If the decision to keep the programme going is made after those people have gone, enormous and avoidable damage will have been done.

107
I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for introducing this debate and for providing a platform on which to draw attention to this quite extraordinary decision.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for bringing this debate to your Lordships' House. Primarily what drew me to speak was an interest in the prison education system. That interest dates back well over a decade to when I worked in an organisation called the Apex Trust. Its entire activity involved trying to break the offending cycle by getting prisoners into jobs. When I worked there, I discovered that the average prisoner was incarcerated for economic crimes; that is, crimes for profit. They were, as we have been informed, young and uneducated or, indeed, educational failures. Thus, they found crime to be a viable option.
I declare two interests. I am the patron of the Adult Dyslexia Organisation and a vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association. I would give the initials of those bodies but, as a dyslexic, I always get them mixed up. Dyslexics, as a group, are very much overrepresented in prison. I came across that assumption independently when I worked at the Apex Trust and discovered that other people had been there before me.
For those who have heard me speak on this subject before, my preamble is intended to show that there are two issues here which contribute to each other. Dyslexics from the recruitment ground for crime tend to be in the lower social echelons. It seems that they are more likely to resort to crime because, for them, it provides a viable option in gaining economic or spending power. That is not a very pleasant circle, but one must attempt to square it. It has been said that dyslexia is a middle-class disease because middle-class parents banged the drum loudly and obtained assistance and help for their children.
In the prison system, this group has all the problems of other prisoners, plus a multiplier of other difficulties. I spoke in those terms when we discussed the subject of children in care approximately two weeks ago in this House. A very high percentage of children in care go on to become prisoners. Their problems are the same as those that we have already mentioned: they generally come from bad educational backgrounds and they have a low level of parental support, and so on. Thus, they find themselves offending at a much higher rate. I tried to point out then that there was a great danger that that problem would not be spotted because of other social problems. Prison is probably the end, or the sink, of our social welfare system. It is reached when all attempts to help have failed. At that point, we have an opportunity at least to identify problems and, I hope, to help.
It is rather odd that someone with a short-term sentence may not have the opportunity to be helped properly. Our current system does not have a sufficiently adapted organisation identification process in terms of the basic assessment that is made
108
of people's educational needs when they first arrive in prison. There is no automatic, built-in process to assess dyslexia.
The lowest estimate that I have seen is that 17.5 per cent of the prison population has a significant problem with dyslexia, and the highest estimate is 50 per cent, which came from the Dyspel Project. That means that an enormous chunk of the prison population has different manifestations of the same problem—they require different types of help.
When dealing with an adult male who is an educational failure, if one identifies the fact that he is dyslexic, one must, to make any difference at all, explain the situation to him and give appropriate help. That is not as easy to do as it sounds. If one gives, for example, child-based educational support training within a classroom, one is merely going to make those receiving it increasingly alienated from authority and the educational system. Going through such a process insults one's dignity.
If we are to deal with that section of the population which suffers from the multiplier effect that I mentioned, we must identify those affected and give them some support—we must explain what problem and what disability they have. One needs to explain that they do not have a disability because they are thick or lazy. If we are dealing with an unidentified problem, they will, almost by definition, have heard such allegations throughout their often very brief educational experience. We must train people. I have just finished scanning some notes from the Dyspel Project, which said that we must train people appropriately in terms of what the problems are. That means that one must invest in training and ensure that the relevant information can be conveyed in whatever context.
The Department for Education and Skills—I believe that that is its name, but I have lost track of the changes—is taking over the running of the prison education service; that is not before time. The situation has previously been chaotic. There have been pockets of good practice, areas of drift, transfers of staff and the shifting of resources. If the department is to make a real impact in this field, it must do various things. First, there must be one uniform programme of assessment, or at least related programmes of assessment. Secondly, there must be a process for explaining to inmates what their problems are. Thirdly, we must offer realistic help to inmates.
If we are dealing with a disability, not everyone affected will be able to acquire basic skills to the normal level. We must be honest with those—a severe dyslexic is never going to master basic English spelling to the same level as someone who is not dyslexic. However, there are ways round that; for example, different ways of taking exams, the academic part of a training course or even a vocational training course. An amanuensis or new types of computer software can be used. Such people must be kept informed and shown that there is a reason for indulging in the education process. They will thereby become educated, employable and, I hope, get off the merry-go-round of offending.

109
What currently tends to happen is that only those on very long-term sentences are found and receive help. I have heard much criticism of education in prisons. People are moved around the system; they may be half-way through a course when they are sent somewhere else where they cannot finish it. I hope that the Department for Education and Skills will ensure that people are allowed to finish all the courses that they start.
Of course, the Probation Service must be included in this consideration and educational notes must be passed on to any new institution with the offender. There are many cases of notes being one or two jumps behind. When I was looking into this matter, I found several people who went through the basic assessment, but then nothing happened and they were moved on again. That is a total waste of time and effort. Unless those problems are addressed, the education system will be greatly undermined and more time and money will be wasted. Unless there is a coherent approach, the errors that have been made will be compounded. This sizeable minority of offenders do not receive any help. They will be thrown back into society, unable to find employment and looking for economic opportunities through crime.
If a coherent approach to screening, advice and tuition appropriate to the offender is instituted, we stand a good chance of removing a sizeable proportion from the system without making other major changes. Looking purely at the economics, that is an option that should be explored. Without that, we are missing an opportunity to remove a sizeable proportion of offenders from the prison population.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend for raising this all-important subject and for introducing it with such skill and understanding. For many years I have been involved in the Prison Service in a variety of voluntary roles and have supported the Howard League for Penal Reform. Most recently, I have taken groups of professional men and women to visit prisons and to spend time with prisoners. Those groups have been drawn from your Lordships' House, Members in another place and leading figures from commerce, the media and the acting professions.
Such visits have provided an opportunity for those who have influence to experience first-hand the state of our prison system and the plight of prisoners. In almost every case I have been told by those attending that it has proved to be an eye-opening, even life-changing, experience.
I want to say a few words about one such experience which, for me, encapsulates many of the problems that we are discussing today. I shall take care in recounting this story to preserve the anonymity of the individual. Within that constraint, the facts that I lay before your Lordships are accurate and as faithful to the truth as I can make them.
Recently on a visit to a prison I met and lunched with a prisoner whom I shall call George. He was in prison for receiving stolen goods and he told me his
110
story in some detail. George's parents had separated when he was 10 or 11. Within a year or so he had become too much for his mother to handle, so he was sent to a special school for delinquent children and by the age of 17 he had been to a number of such schools and ended up in Feltham. Three further arrests for stealing or receiving stolen goods, mainly to finance his drug habit, had led to his current custodial sentence.
It had been explained to me that because of a shortage of staff, many prisoners like George were locked up for 18 hours a day with little opportunity for exercise or social contact. George told me that his girlfriend had been to see him the previous evening with their young son. She had told him that if he ever returned to prison, he would never see her or his son again. They would simply disappear while he was inside.
Naively, I said to him, "Now, that really is an incentive to go straight, isn't it? You really have a good reason to stay out of trouble". For a while George was silent. He obviously thought over carefully what I had said and with a resigned shrug of his shoulders said, "No, I don't think so. You see, I can't read or write very well"; and with a twinkle in his eye he added. "But I can start a car at 100 yards and life in here isn't too bad. The food is okay, we get drugs relatively easily if we want them, we are relatively comfortable and if you stay out of trouble it's fine". He said ruefully, "No, I feel I belong here". George was about to celebrate his 22nd birthday.
Even allowing for the fact that convicted criminals are not necessarily to be relied upon for their truthfulness, I have learnt from many visits to prisons that George is not the exception. His story and thousands like it all contain the same elements and the same causes that lead those young men to crime in the first place and explain why they go back to prison time and time again.
The five trigger points that lead to criminal behaviour and subsequent prisoner re-offence are clear. These are five areas on which government can take action, to a greater or lesser extent. First, we live in a society in which nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Broken homes are now the norm rather than the exception, as they were 50 years ago when I was growing up.
Secondly, if someone commits crimes when young, what chance does he have of a sound, thorough, if basic, education? Without that, how can he find a job? Thirdly, when someone ends up somewhere like Feltham, of which I have detailed knowledge and experience, there is a real chance that he will meet others who will promote his criminal ways. Non-criminal friends are vital if he is not to offend again. Fourthly, once in prison, there is no resource to educate, train or inspire for life outside the prison walls.
Fifthly, as the Minister knows, I have often raised the issue in your Lordships' House of the link between prison, crime and drugs. When visiting Brixton recently, I was told that 40 per cent of all remand

111
prisoners had taken illicit drugs in the previous 72 hours. Thirty-three per cent of men on remand and nearly half of sentenced men reported using drugs during their time in prison.
The tragedy is that for George and thousands like him it is the life outside prison that is frightening and in which they feel inadequate and not the custodial life behind bars. That is where they feel safe, protected and able to lead the lives that we have taught them to expect. We often ask whether prison is a deterrent to the young potential offender. That is a fair question. But we should also ask whether life inside prison now deters people from welcoming the opportunity of taking up a responsible life in the outside world.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for this debate. He is right to express his concern. The prison statistics make grim reading. Last year the average population in custody was 64,600, the average remand population was 11,270 and the sentenced population increased by 2 per cent from an average of 51,690 to 52,690.
The incarceration of female prisoners must also be a matter of concern. Their number increased by 3 per cent from an average of 3,250 to 3,350. In England and Wales there were 124 prisoners for every 100,000 members of the general population. That was the second highest among western European countries. Only Portugal has more prisoners relating to its population.
There are questions that I ask repeatedly, having served as a member of the board of visitors and a magistrate, and having taken part in a number of criminal justice agencies. Why are so many people remanded in custody? Why are so many mentally ill people in prison? Why are so many women incarcerated?
There is an encouraging sign that the crime rate is falling and there seems to be a recognition at least that that is largely a result of crime prevention rather than the operation of the criminal justice system. We need more detailed information and public debate about sentencing to try to reach more of a consensus about what we want to achieve. We should be more questioning of the use of imprisonment.
Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Warner, chairman of the Youth Justice Board. He expressed concerns about the number of young offenders being given custodial sentences when community sentences might be more appropriate. I also welcome the latest statement by the Home Office that in future the publication of recorded crime statistics will regularly be accompanied by the results of the British crime survey. That will provide a more accurate picture of crime patterns and trends.
The tough approach to crime may have widespread public support but this is ineffective in reducing crime. The matter is not helped by the way in which some of
112
the media report crime. Your Lordships might care to cast your minds back to the time when they made much of the 4.3 per cent rise in recorded violent crime.
It is simplistic to argue that society is becoming less safe. The fear of crime has far exceeded crime itself. More people are now reporting crime. The police have done a lot to encourage victims to report offences such as rape, racially aggravated attacks and domestic violence. Greater confidence in the police is an important element not only in reducing crime but also in reducing the fear of crime.
Alternative to custody must now form the basis of our crime prevention strategy. It is not to say that violent criminals should not be sent to prisons. It is to argue that we are making excessive use of prisons and prisons are an ineffective way of preventing re-offending, particularly by young male offenders. The latest prison statistics show that around three-quarters of young men released from prison were reconvicted within two years.
I welcome the increased attention, which the Government are currently giving to the resettlement needs of released prisoners. I also welcome the range of recent resettlement-related initiatives, including the establishment of the Prison Service Custody to Work Unit and the Social Exclusion Unit's current inquiry into reducing reoffending by released prisoners.
The damaging effects of imprisonment on offenders' community ties are well documented and the right reverend Prelate dealt with that subject. The resettlement survey carried out by NACRO—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—which I chair, shows that 55 per cent of prisoners were unemployed before entering prison, while another 34 per cent lose jobs because of their prison sentence. Whereas 13 per cent of prisoners were homeless before imprisonment, another 34 per cent lose homes as a result of their imprisonment. One-third of prisoners in NACRO's survey state that they have lost contact with families during their time in prison.
An important aspect of diversion away from crime relates to how we deal with recidivism. Here I welcome the latest joint thematic review by HM Inspectors of Prisons and Probation. The core message they convey is very simple. It calls for,
"a national strategy to be drawn up and implemented and identifies some of the changes necessary in the system, approaches and priorities of both the prison and probation services to support co-operative and targeted work and achieve the effective resettlement of offenders sentenced to imprisonment".
Both Rod Morgan, the Chief Inspector of Probation, and Anne Owners, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, are new appointments. I wish them well in this important work. They have a tough job to follow their predecessors.
Research shows that unemployed former offenders are twice as likely to reoffend as those who get and keep a job. Homeless former prisoners are nearly two-and-a-half times as likely to be reconvicted as those with stable accommodation. Prisoners without family support are between twice and six times more likely to

113
reoffend than those with support from a family. Drug dependent former offenders who continue using drugs commit around five time more offences than those who enter treatment programmes.
Most prisoners are short-term prisoners. Of the 90,000 people sentenced to imprisonment each year, 60,000 received sentences of less than 12 months. In addition, short prison terms are served by around 45,000 people who are remanded in custody each year but who do not subsequently receive prison sentences—they are either acquitted or given non-custodial sentences. Short-term and remand prisoners receive no post-release supervision from the probation service. Any assistance they receive is from voluntary organisations whose funding is limited and whose availability is therefore geographically variable.
Recent recommendations on sentencing reform in John Halliday's report Making Punishments Work, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, include proposals for a new sentence of "custody plus" under which short-term prisoners will receive post-release supervision from the probation service. While that would be a very welcome reform, we should not believe that that alone means that prisoners' practical needs relating to housing, employment, benefits and family support will necessarily be sorted out. Many young and adult prisoners serving sentences of over 12 months, all of whom already receive short-term supervision, receive wholly inadequate help with such practical problems. Many probation officers do not regard it as part of their responsibility to provide direct help with housing and employment problems.
Often such help is provided, if at all, by underfunded voluntary organisations. Yet, according to parliamentary Answers given to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, earlier this year, the Home Office plans three-year funding increases of 20.4 per cent for the police; 37.4 per cent for the probation service; 29.4 per cent for the CPS; 12.8 per cent for the Prison Service; and 35 per cent for victim support organisations, but no increase for voluntary organisations that work with offenders. John Halliday says in his review:
"Involving voluntary organisations in areas like employment, housing and mentoring will be essential to reduce risks of re-offending. How that should be done—independently or within contracts or service level agreements with statutory services—is beyond the scope of this review; but if all provision for work with offenders under sentence were to be made through statutory services, it would be desirable to have a substantial component earmarked for funded partnerships with voluntary organisations".
I plead with the Minister to ensure that adequate resources are channelled to voluntary organisations which are so important and to make sure that many of them which suffer hardship at the present time have at least the resources to be able to continue the good work that they are doing.
The report of the Prison and Probation Inspectorates' joint thematic review Through the Prison Gate recommended that the Home Office should produce and implement a resettlement strategy and that the Prison Service and the National Probation Directorate should work together to
114
develop a co-ordinated partnership plan which is monitored to assess its impact on the resettlement of offenders. These recommendations are sensible as far as they go, but if any national resettlement strategy is to be effective it must also include the voluntary sector as an equal partner. This can be done by involving the Alliance for Reducing Offending which includes all the national organisations involved in prisoners' resettlement and can speak jointly on their behalf.
Four important changes are needed to make a resettlement strategy work properly. First, we need a national strategy for the involvement of the voluntary sector in providing services for the resettlement of prisoners, such as housing, employment, mentoring, mental health and addiction problems. This should be drawn up in partnership between the statutory side—the Home Office, the National Probation Service and the Prison Service—and the Alliance for Reducing Offending which represents the voluntary sector.
Secondly, there needs to be a national policy decision that in every prison there should be a resettlement team, not simply a resettlement committee, but a team of full-time staff, like the education department. Its members should speak to prisoners at every induction course about its services; interview every single prisoner, sentenced or on remand, who enters the prison; take, or help the prisoner to take, immediate action to keep open the prisoner's existing accommodation and job wherever possible; draw up a practical resettlement plan for every prisoner; carry out housing advice work to line up accommodation on release; carry out job preparation and job search work; co-ordinate regular input into the prison from outside agencies which can help with prisoners' resettlement; make links with community projects; and run pre-release courses.
These aims could include suitably trained seconded prison officers or probation service officers, but they should be run by the voluntary sector contractors and work in partnership with the Prison Service.
Finally, tomorrow I chair the annual general meeting of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. My message is clear: in some cases changes are not happening fast enough. At a time when crime is decreasing we see prison numbers rising. Home Office projections now estimate that the prison population could reach the 80,000 mark in the next few years. That will make us the prison capital of Europe. This crisis in public policy—that even when crime rates are going down, the Government feel that it makes political sense to allow prison numbers to rise—needs to be addressed with some urgency. We can make a start, a positive start, which will prevent our young people from re-offending.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dundee should feel gratified that in this debate he has brought forth a strong and unified approach to the problem of prisoner recidivism and a common recognition of what is required to reduce this particularly difficult problem.

115
I come to this field as a novice. It made depressing reading that about half of all crime is probably committed by about 10 per cent of the criminal fraternity, of whom over half are under 21, three-quarters started offending between the ages of 13 and 15, two-thirds are drug users, three-quarters have no work and half have no qualifications.
Frankly, by the time that we reach this problem we are too late. I do not apologise to my noble friend for making that point. If we went back to an earlier stage we could perhaps do something to reduce prisoner recidivism by qualifying children, who would otherwise have horrendous problems, for life so that they did not finish up as criminals. That aspect is very important. This goes back to a poor family life, perhaps no family life, and certainly in many instances, if not most, a broken home. The divorce rate has already been mentioned. I am sure that that is a potent factor in the unsettlement of so many young people. Another factor is areas where unemployment is too high. These are all problems we are all aware of. Truancy was not mentioned much tonight, but again that is all too often a precursor to criminal activity.
There are also the children with no educational motivation. Schools do the best they can but in the end they have to devote their resources to those who are receptive. Therefore, some children benefit very little, if at all, from their time in school. These are all failings which matter in this respect.
I return to the problem of prisoner recidivism. When it comes to rehabilitation, when someone is trying to rebuild a life that already has a basis of failure, that person has a very deep problem indeed. We need especially to address that aspect.
Although I am always sceptical about government expenditure, a large increase in expenditure on the criminal justice system is being put in place. But I wonder how much of that will come through into the prison service, and, more particularly, into those aspects of the prison service which will really help to educate prisoners, to give them a purpose, to increase their social skills so that they have some chance of getting on with people and becoming part of the community outside, and to give them qualifications so that they will get employment. All the work that is being done to improve performance in the courts and to increase—heaven help us—the number of prison cells will achieve nothing unless we seek to correct the problems of endlessly repetitive crimes being committed by the same groups of people.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this evening's debate was highlighted in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Chadlington when he spoke of George: prison becomes home. If that is the problem with which we have to deal, then although prison life should not be so grim as to be unbearable, we need to ensure that life back in the community is so ordered that prisoners are able to make a fresh start.
We should think carefully about the question of drugs. A great deal of evidence suggests that drugs are relatively easily available to people incarcerated in our
116
prisons. Outside prison, the fact is that a drug habit provides an extremely strong financial motivation to indulge in criminality. Once a person is hooked on drugs, his demand for cash rises enormously and in a manner that is difficult to meet by honest means. The tendency is to fall into criminal ways.
Given that situation, I find it somewhat disturbing to read the mixed messages as regards drugs. On the one hand, drugs are readily obtainable in our prisons, while, on the other hand, the Government have recently taken a step over cannabis, possibly in the right direction. But, as I have said, at present the message is too mixed. The Government appear to be soft on some drugs, whereas in fact the use of Class A drugs is a serious criminal offence, as is anything to do with the distribution of drugs—and rightly so. Nevertheless, the question is raised whether drugs, which form such a powerful motivation to criminality, should not become far more controlled than the free market conditions which the criminal environment provides. Perhaps that is a matter for another day, but I cannot help but think that we shall not be able to solve the problems of crime and recidivism without instituting dramatic developments in how society treats drugs.
This has been a good debate. If, with their increased investment, the Government think that they can change totally the ethos of the Prison Service, then there may be progress. However, it was disturbing to learn that programmes based on Christian principles might be frowned on because the service could not be seen to take a position in favour of a particular religion. I am sure that the correct response to that is, as has already been pointed out, to offer other religions the opportunity to work with prisoners in a similar fashion. Not the least of the problems faced by prisoners is that most of them have nothing to believe in. That too is something they need.
I have always believed that mankind was put on the face of the planet to toil, but those who work in this field are indulging in a labour of Hercules.
10.19 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for raising this important issue and to all noble Lords who have spoken. There is no question but that reoffending by ex-prisoners is one of our most intractable social problems. I do not think that anyone can deny that. I make the same commitment as I made in our previous debate on prisons. On the points that I do not address—I suspect that that will be the majority of them—I promise that I shall write individually to each noble Lord who has spoken. All the questions deserve answers, and I shall see that they are provided. I would like to have given a few more answers now, but that will not be possible in the time that remains.
Let me give the bad news first: last Friday, the prison population reached an all-time high of 68,181. The figure is slightly lower today because of releases, but it reached that all-time high last Friday. That is not something of which this country can be proud or about

117
which we should boast. As every noble Lord who has spoken knows, there are some people in prison who should not be there and, obviously, a few people are let out who should not be released. The fact of the matter is that we cannot boast about it, as we have a real problem on our hands with the size of the prison population.
I should like to deal with the themes of as many speeches as possible. I promise that I shall address the issue of the Kainos programme before I finish. The issue of drugs was raised by many noble Lords. We have many more drug programmes in prison than ever before. These days, they are part of the central fabric of the Prison Service. In every prison that I visit, people talk to me about what they are doing about drugs. It is true that drugs are still getting into prisons. I do not know how that is the case, but nevertheless, serious work is being done to try to change behaviour in terms of drug use. In many ways, that goes beyond the mandatory drug testing. This House and the other place have recently introduced orders on drug testing for people picked up and charged with some of the acquisitive crimes. We have got a serious problem and no one is going to gainsay that.
There is another issue that was raised by most noble Lords: preparation for coming out of prison. There is no doubt that having no job, no home and a family that has disappeared is a lethal cocktail that is bound to equal getting back inside for the vast majority of people. There is no easy answer to that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, that I have met George. Anybody who has gone into prisons and listened to some of the young people there will have met him. I was very depressed when I met my George just after I came to this House, when I visited an establishment in which young people were held. The exact points that the noble Lord made were made then.
On education, I have done the odd very short prison visit as regards which one could not take the necessary time. I have sometimes said "Show me your education facilities" or "Show me your health facilities". I have gone unannounced and on state visits. But there is no doubt about it: in terms of education, there has been massive progress over the years since I first visited constituents after I became a Member of the other place.
Employability is fundamental. I have some figures which show that more than 60 per cent of prisoners have such poor basic skills that they are excluded from 96 per cent of all jobs. That research was done a while ago, but we have no reason to believe that the situation is any different today. Research has shown that level 2 qualifications are a major factor in helping individuals to gain employment. Almost 12,500 level 2 basic skill qualifications were achieved last year and the target for 2003–04 is 21,000. However, the majority of prisoners are at level 1 or below in literacy. We have an agreed basic skills target of 7,500 qualifications at entry level and 7,500 at level 1. That is pretty fundamental. Many of the programmes are subcontracted and run by colleges and not by the prison itself. That is a very important part of the programme.
118
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the issue of dyslexia. He raised it in a very detailed way and deserves an answer, especially in view of some of the statistics that he gave, which varied from 17 to 50 per cent. I can well understand that for short-term prisoners it is a major problem.
The last prison that I visited was Long Lartin. I called there at one o'clock the other day. I rang from the car park—my private office — to say, "Let the director-general know that I am about to knock on the door of Long Lartin to visit for a couple of hours". It was a quick visit. Obviously there are a lot of long-term prisoners in such a prison. Much more can be done with the programmes there. It is much more difficult to get the prisoners incentivised because they are going to be there for a while, but it provides a contrast. Prisoners can take Open University courses because they are going to be there for years: they can switch on and switch off. It is very difficult to get an effective programme organised for a prisoner who is in and out in 12 months and who may have been in three different prisons. It is a serious issue. As to the problem of dyslexia identified by the noble Lord, I hope to come back to him in some detail.
One or two noble Lords mentioned the Social Exclusion Unit study. I was involved in one aspect of this when I was a DSS Minister in the other place before the general election. I am very conscious that there are difficulties for people coming out of prison and straight on to benefit when the flow is not seamless. It is true that it is better for people to go into work, but the flow is not seamless if you cannot get into work and you are denied benefits because you cannot prove who you are, or you do not have an official piece of paper with your national insurance number on it. Those kind of issues are being addressed. We have to find solutions to them, otherwise we shall be storing up more trouble. We know that people will end up back in prison because they need the money.
As to the issue of restorative justice, I do not know as much about that issue as I should. A magistrate, who is a long-standing personal friend of mine, was waxing lyrical about a meeting she had been to in the Thames Valley area; she was absolutely full of it. She had written to the Home Office—I was pleased that the reply had been sent before I checked to see where it was—in a positive way. We are working on this. The Prison Service is working with the International Centre for Prison Studies to explore the potential for restorative justice initiatives.
We have to take on board that such schemes require the consent of victims. They are not wholly suitable for some persistent, long-term offenders who commit serious crimes against the person. We have to be careful. However, if we can model a system of restorative justice to help deal with some prisoners, we should use it and explore how it can be extended further.
There is education outside the classroom of course. I accept that the average figures for people who are locked up and denied purposeful activity mask enormous variations in the different prison

119
establishments. I was at a prison last week where the prisoners are literally not coming out of their cells at all. They do not want to come out; they are so dangerous and so on. They are not coming out, and that can distort averages. Nevertheless, we have to provide more purposeful activity with, it is to be hoped, a job at the end of it.
As to Kainos, I have the lines to take here, a draft speaking note and a background note. But there will not be time to read either the lines to take, my draft speaking note or the background note, so I shall pick and choose from little bits of them. I shall deal with the matter in some detail by correspondence.
There will be a delay with the Verne's withdrawal from the programme, simply because of the way in which the dormitory accommodation was configured. More time will be allowed for a suitable replacement programme to be found.
As has been said, the Kainos community programme is a Christian-based offender treatment programme. It had been allowed to operate on an experimental basis in four prisons—Highpoint North, Highpoint South, Swaleside and the Verne—over the past two years in order to see whether, through independent evaluation, it could demonstrate its claim to make a significant impact on reoffending.
The evaluation has now been completed. While it has shown some modest, positive effects on prisoners' attitudes and behaviour, the research found that the programme had no impact on reconviction rates in the 12 months after the prisoner's release. In the light of that, the Prison Service decided as a matter of policy that it would not be right to continue the programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. It said that it would take a similar approach with any faith-based offender treatment. I understand that this was done in the light of the evaluation and other available information, including the views of the Chaplain General and the Muslim adviser. I have no evidence that the programme was under attack from other religious groups. I shall seek more information about the particular rates; but the general thrust of the information is that, following an independent evaluation, the programme was found not to do the job intended. That was the reason for abandoning it. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will take the opportunity to read the whole of the letter from which I quoted, and then consider whether the reason that he is now giving is the reason that was advanced by the authorities for closing the course.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall certainly take the opportunity to read the letter. If the figures are available, as I assume they must be, I shall also provide the detailed figures for which the noble Lord asked.
I cannot do justice to all the detailed points that have been raised. The programmes are taking place, based on research, in an attempt to change people's behaviour once they are inside prison and to make sure
120
that they do not return to prison. The problem seems intractable, but an enormous amount of resources is going into the programmes—as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, accepted—over the next two years following the previous spending review.
Not all the programmes are perfect. Some are in their early days and we do not have sufficient results to come before the House with a compact on the basis that "this system works" or "this system does not". It is too early to say. I am certain that your Lordships will return to this issue on a regular basis. I can provide detailed reports from time to time on the progress of the schemes.
I shall seek to answer in correspondence the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, regarding voluntary organisations. The nature of the sentence, whether inside or outside prison, is fundamental. In due course, when we come to debate the consequences for the legislative framework and the criminal justice system following the publication of the Halliday report, we shall no doubt have extensive detailed debates on this issue.
I come with bad news as regards the level of the prison population. Nevertheless, work is going on around the country. I refer in particular to the Head Start programme in the North of England, about which I have been briefed in the past few days. Excellent programmes are taking place in northern prisons. I understand that hotels are taken over; employers go to the hotel, listen to the prisoners, see what they have done by way of work in the prison, and see whether jobs can be found for them when they come out; programmes are taking place and people can apply for jobs in association with the Commonwealth Games in a systematic way from one of the prisons. Prisoners will apply in the same way as normal members of the public. The idea is to prepare them in terms of filling in forms and doing the necessary work in prison. In that way, they stand a chance of leaving prison and going straight into a job, thus becoming part of the mainstream of our employment programme.
I accept the point that was made about international comparisons. Croatia was mentioned. We are interested in what other countries are doing and in what we can learn from them. We obviously have a great deal to learn, given the scale of our prison population compared to the population in the country. There are differences in jurisdictions and in legal and social contexts which must be taken into account. But in working to reduce re-offending we shall draw on the best of the international research. If a country has a programme that works, we shall look to see whether we can use the best from that research to apply to our own circumstances. We have no shutters up against any ideas in regard to one of our most intractable social problems—namely, the vast number of young men who keep returning to prison. We must do something for the Georges of this world, and we must be accountable if we do not succeed in doing so.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he reassure the House that, even though he has expressed reservations about the Kainos project, the Government affirm and wish to encourage the work of church groups in prisons, not least in the area of preventing recidivism?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as a general point, that is absolutely so. There is no reason whatever why church groups and the voluntary sector should not be involved in a positive way. This was a one-off project in four prisons funded for two years on the basis that
122
it would be evaluated independently. Independent evaluation has demonstrated—I paraphrase— that it did not work. It did not work—I cannot go beyond what I have quoted—as regards reconviction in the 12 months after people left. I do not know whether there are any more figures available.
We are not putting up the shutters with regard to church groups and faith groups which make a contribution in that area.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Palestinian Territories
  Palestinian Territories
  Middle East Peace Process
  Middle East Peace Process
  Embarkation Control
  Embarkation Control
  Mutual Understanding on Religious Issues
  Mutual Understanding on Religious Issues
  FRY: Export Controls
  FRY: Export Controls
  Companies Registration
  Companies Registration
  Premature Babies: Pain Relief
  Premature Babies: Pain Relief
  NHS Information Network
  NHS Information Network
  Countryside Strategy
  Countryside Strategy
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Public Order Order 1987
  Public Order Order 1987
  Provisional IRA and International Terrorist Groups
  Provisional IRA and International Terrorist Groups
  Northern Ireland: Fireworks
  Northern Ireland: Fireworks
  Contingency Planning
  Contingency Planning