Sitting of 7 November 2001

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
  That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 15 November at Four o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Devolution
    Mr. Patrick Hall: If he will make a statement on his future plans for devolution in Northern Ireland. [10848]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): We must now carry forward the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. Devolved institutions need stability in the interests of good government in Northern Ireland, and in preparation for them taking on further responsibilities under the agreement. Concerns have been raised about aspects of Assembly voting arrangements, which I hope all parties will deal with constructively through the review process. Yesterday I also proposed that the next Assembly elections should be on 1 May 2003.
    Mr. Hall: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Given the events in the Northern Ireland Assembly in the past few days, does he agree that there is something deeply unsatisfactory about a situation in which a candidate for First Minister can achieve 70 per cent. of the vote in the Assembly and yet be deemed not to have attracted sufficient support? Will he outline any changes and processes that he intends to put in place to address the problem by speaking to other people and other parties?
    Dr. Reid: The first thing that I should do is to welcome the election of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and Mark Durkan. I congratulate them on that.
    My hon. Friend refers to a problem that has been raised with me by a number of parties in the Assembly. I have agreed to constitute a review under paragraph 36 of strand 1 of the agreement to consider that and other matters as they relate to the operation of the Assembly. It is evident that despite all the difficulties and passions that are inflamed by the many aspects of the Good Friday agreement with which we are proceeding, we have a chance to have stable democratic institutions in Northern Ireland in which the various communities can share responsibility for government. I have no doubt that that is what people in Northern Ireland want: local decisions taken on local problems by local politicians.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the Secretary of State's opinion that local people want local decisions on things that matter to them. Is he prepared to say how wide the review might be? Will he comment on the demand by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Irish Republic for greater visibility of the war being over by the dismantling of military bases at a time when the

    223
    majority of people in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their background, are still bemused by what is happening about decommissioning?
    Dr. Reid: On the first question, the review may not be solely concerned with one aspect. Paragraph 36 of strand 1 of the agreement says that it can deal with procedures and, indeed, wider electoral arrangements. That will be a matter for the parties, which I will ask to come together on 19 November.
    On the second question, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman misinterprets the situation. Very few people in Northern Ireland make demands on me or each other, although they sometimes make suggestions. As for the idea that we should proceed with the normalisation of Northern Ireland, that is our wish, but that can be done only in the context of visible and practical proof that the threat is reducing. We have made significant progress on that, and the decommissioning event was another important step forward. Nevertheless, all hon. Members realise that there are still rejectionist loyalists and dissident republicans, who carried out another attempt to maul and murder people in Birmingham only a few days ago. While those people exist, they stop normalisation. It is a supreme irony that in many areas of Northern Ireland, which, like us, want troop levels to be reduced and normalisation to occur, the main stumbling-block is those dissident republicans who claim to want that very aim.
    Mr. John McFall: May I congratulate the Secretary of State and others who were involved in the political process over the past few days? Does he agree that that has done more for devolution than anything else over the past few months? I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and Mark Durkan for their courage and endurance in those months. Despite the scenes the other day that were reminiscent of "Rocky IV", we know that there is a way forward, and those people who have been involved in the process must be congratulated on that. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the community infrastructure, especially in working-class Protestant areas, needs to be reinforced, because it will only be at a local level that we solidify that base and ensure an enduring political peace process?
    Dr. Reid: We all deprecate some of the scenes that occurred, but we should not sensationalise them. There was a great deal of passion involved—that is the nature of politics in Northern Ireland, as it is in many other areas. The more we can settle disputes with dialogue that does not border on violence, the better it will be for us all.
    I agree with my hon. Friend about the stability of the Executive and the Assembly. Those institutions are not only the democratic bedrock of the Good Friday agreement, but the vehicle through which the age-old differences between the two sides of the community can be reconciled in partnership and, in the Joint Ministerial Council, through which an all-Ireland dimension can be given to the process of seeking solutions, while granting the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom. I hope that all the institutions progress. Ultimately, and most importantly, they are the means by which we will deliver a better life for people in
    224
    Northern Ireland through jobs, education and housing. The sooner we can address those concerns, the better for all involved.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rejoice in the election of the First Minister, but does the Secretary of State understand the anxiety that many of us in a law-based society feel about the sleight of hand that took place? I refer in particular to the redesignation of Assembly Members from the Alliance party of Northern Ireland as Unionists, which is very difficult to understand. There is also the disparity between the date of elections announced in this House and the date that was apparently, or at least implicitly, communicated to the High Court of Justice in Belfast.
    Dr. Reid: On the first matter, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that no-one in his party or in this House has ever used parliamentary techniques, such as filibusters, deadlines and suspensions, that is a chronic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Everything that was done in the Assembly was within the Standing Orders, and it was done with propriety. I wish that he would not take that rather patronising, lofty tone.
    I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice on my statutory obligations, but I do have others to advise me on my legal responsibilities, and I have a degree of integrity that I hope remains unquestioned. I have met my statutory responsibilities; I have proposed an election date, and I have done so in a way that not only meets the statutory requirements but, I hope, marks the actions of a reasonable man taking into account all the developments that took place.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: With other hon. Members I had the honour earlier today to meet some of the parents of pupils at Holy Cross school in the Ardoyne. What hope can my right hon. Friend offer those parents of young schoolgirls who want nothing more than for their children to walk to school in peace?
    Dr. Reid: I have made my view known: I would like to see the protest called off for three reasons. First, we have opened channels of communication to allow any grievances to be aired, and there may well be real or perceived grievances among the residents of the Glenbryn estate. Secondly, I do not think that any children should be subjected, even by peaceful protest, to the treatment experienced by these children, particularly when some are coming up to their 11-plus examinations at the end of this week. Thirdly, the Glenbryn residents and those who support them undermine their own cause by using that form of action.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the Alliance party and its leader, David Ford, for showing the courage of their convictions and temporarily redesignating themselves as Unionists to ensure that one of the architects of the peace process, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), was re-elected to his position as First Minister? Does he agree that it is unreasonable that they should have had to redesignate themselves for their votes

    225
    to be counted? Will he assure me that one of the considerations in his review will be to ensure that we do not find ourselves in such an inequitable situation again?
    Dr. Reid: I have no hesitation in expressing publicly my admiration for the courage of and the initiative taken by the leadership of the Alliance party, and before that by the Women's Coalition. Those are small parties which took those steps not to their own advantage, but to the advantage of the whole peace process and the stability of the institutions. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the conclusions of any review, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is one of the matters that will be addressed.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Secretary of State accept that we would like to associate ourselves with what he has just said about both the Alliance party and the Women's Coalition? They allowed their sense of the general good to override long-standing party political predilections and they have played a momentous part in the arrangement that has now been reached.
    May I also—the right hon. Gentleman might want to hold his breath and enjoy it while it lasts—offer him my sincere congratulations on the astuteness and perseverance that he has shown during this period, especially in allowing time for the various parties to reach that essential agreement? Although there were many artificialities in the anomalies in the arrangement—my right hon., learned and noble Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is right to draw attention to them—the greatest artificiality of all would have been 70 per cent. of Members of the Assembly wanting the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to be First Minister, but that democratic decision being overridden. I add my voice to those who have been asking the Secretary of State to ensure that the whole issue of blocking minorities and their appropriate levels is thoroughly examined in the review.
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous accolade and for his support in private discussions on those matters. Sometimes the lack of publicity implies that he and others, such as the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), have not been engaged, whereas in fact they have taken a great interest.
    To answer the question, we shall address that issue in the review. Although the fact that someone can get 70 per cent. support and still not be elected is an obvious subject for discussion, it is also important to remember the history of Northern Ireland: the degree of mistrust between the two communities required a threshold of acceptance by both to be part of the Belfast agreement, so as to ensure that we could make progress with the whole community behind the proposals. The issue is therefore not as simple as it appears, but it will certainly be addressed.

    Terrorist Activity
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on attempts at terrorist activity by republicans since 1 January. [10849]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Since 1 January this year, of those terrorist actions that were reported or otherwise came to the attention of the police, 223 have been attributed to republican groupings.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful for that response. In the light of the bombing of Manchester five years ago and the attempted bombing of Birmingham at the weekend, does the Minister agree that today the threat to Britain's cities from Continuity IRA and Real IRA is at least as great as the threat from al-Qaeda? Does she also agree that it is necessary to pursue all terrorist organisations and all terrorists with equal vigour, regardless of their origins?
    Jane Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point. Had he asked a different question, I might have been able to tell him that during the same period more than 840 attempts to commit terrorist acts were made, 620 of which were attributed to loyalist groups. He is right to say that we must tackle terrorist activity wherever and by whomever it is attempted, but I disagree with the main thrust of his question. It is important to note that the Chief Constable has confirmed his view that there has been a real improvement in the situation as a result of the IRA's decision to decommission a quantity of arms. The advice of the Chief Constable must be taken very seriously at a time like this.
    Jean Corston: We all know that all terrorism is founded on, and is inextricably bound up with, the drugs trade, organised crime and racketeering. What steps are the Government taking to deal with and dismantle that apparatus of terrorism?
    Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me the opportunity to publicise the organised crime taskforce, which I chair and which was set up just over a year ago. It has enabled the key agencies in Northern Ireland—Customs and Excise, the Police Service, the Inland Revenue and other agencies—to come together and work together in a much more co-ordinated and coherent way, strengthening relationships between them. As a result, there have been a number of key successes, including drug seizures, the seizure of illegal alcohol, and the interception and the disruption of organised crime in Northern Ireland. Sadly, such crime is one of the key hallmarks of the way in which violence and criminality are developing in the Province.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Does the Minister accept that, despite all the talk about decommissioning, the reality on the ground for many people, especially in north Belfast, is that there is no real decommissioning? Will she confirm to the House the involvement of the Provisional IRA in shooting attacks on the RUC in Duncairn gardens, the shooting of a Protestant man on the Limestone road and a shooting attack on the Ardoyne on Saturday a week ago? While there is much talk about decommissioning, will the Minister confirm that there has to be a programme and timetable for the verifiable completion of decommissioning by the February deadline?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of incidents. If he had heard the answer that I

    227
    gave earlier, he would know that I said that terrorist activity is perpetrated by a number of paramilitary organisations across Northern Ireland. The response of the security forces is to tackle those incidents wherever they occur and whoever carries them out.
    It is important to remember that the aim of the peace process is total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms; that is the purpose and role of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. The role of the head of that commission will continue and he will maintain contact with the paramilitary organisations that are in touch with him. It is important that organisations involved in terrorism use that opportunity to introduce plans for further decommissioning.
    David Winnick: While all terrorist violence is undoubtedly barbaric, is it not a particular obscenity to try to bomb Birmingham where, in November 1974, 21 innocent people were butchered? Is that not yet another illustration of the sort of people in the so-called Real IRA, who go against the mandate of people in the Republic who made it perfectly clear that they support, by an overwhelming majority, the Good Friday agreement
    Jane Kennedy: We unreservedly condemn such attacks. My hon. Friend is right; there can be no support whatsoever—in fact, nothing but absolute condemnation—for individuals who would organise and try to carry out such murderous attacks. I therefore entirely agree with him. At such times, it is important to recognise the role that the police are playing in pursuing vigorously those who are responsible for those murderous attacks to make sure that they are brought to justice for their crime.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I accept that the Minister and the Secretary and State said that the overall level of threat is reducing at the moment. However, given the bomb in Birmingham, the bombs elsewhere and continuing efforts by Real IRA and Continuity IRA to murder members of the security forces this year in Northern Ireland, will the Minister confirm that the threat is real and serious, and that any failure to suppress wider paramilitary violence, to which she referred in an earlier reply, could lead to the historic pattern of republican violence repeating itself?
    Jane Kennedy: Security is kept at a level consistent with the threat posed by republican dissidents. The security forces are very much aware of that threat and that from rogue elements within loyalism. It is important that individuals involved in violence ask themselves how they should respond to the significant step recently taken by the Provisional IRA. It is important that they end all paramilitary activity, preparations for paramilitary activity and violence of any sort, intimidation and racketeering.

    Police Service
    Lady Hermon: What assessment he has made of the recruitment procedure for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. [10850]
    Mr. David Watts: If he will make a statement on police recruitment in Northern Ireland. [10852]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The first recruitment campaign for the Police Service of Northern. Ireland will enable the Chief Constable to appoint some 300 police trainees from Catholic and Protestant traditions on a 50:50 basis. It should be noted that that is many more than Chris Patten envisaged when he wrote his report.
    Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for her reply and the Secretary of State and other hon. Members for their congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I regret that he cannot be here this afternoon, but he had a long-standing engagement in Washington and he sends his apologies to the House. I wish him and Mark Durkan all the best as First Minister and Deputy First Minister. They form an excellent team and I am delighted that they are back.
    Will the Minister confirm that the same standards will apply to all those who enter the recruitment pool and that they will not be lowered for some? There are rumours about the matter and I would appreciate a clear statement on recruitment procedure
    Jane Kennedy: I am conscious of the hon. Lady's close interest in the subject and that she has written to me recently about it. She pursues her interest in the Police Service and her concerns in Northern Ireland vigorously. It is important to note that the merit pool is a measure approved by Parliament to tackle the under-representation of Catholics and to enable the Police Service to be more widely accepted. That is the purpose of the 50:50 recruitment trawl.
    However, standards have not been lowered. On the contrary, the quality of applicants has been high. All candidates who entered the merit pool were required to fulfil the same fixed qualifying criteria. They have undergone a series of rigorous tests based on United Kingdom-wide competencies. All 300 or more recruits who are joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland deserve our support and compliments on their success so far. We wish them all the best in their training.
    Mr. Watts: Does the Minister know that many people in the country are fed up with the negative attitudes of many Northern Ireland politicians? Can she confirm that Sinn Fein appears to be actively discouraging people from joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is largely right. It is important to note that almost 20,000 people have sought information about the Police Service of Northern Ireland and recruitment to it. We may have as many as 4,000 definite applicants for the second round of appointments. We hope that all political parties in Northern Ireland will sign up as soon as possible and participate in the new policing arrangement.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that I cannot take the same tone on policing. Is not it unsatisfactory that the new Police Service of Northern Ireland and the new Police Board are being launched this week with an inherited £20 million deficit? That reduces

    229
    the possibility of their fulfilling their appointed tasks. Is not it even more unsatisfactory that the new Police Service is not being funded to implement the community policing provisions of the Patten report? They are vital if we are to replace the terror of paramilitary groups in the inner-city areas. Does the Minister agree that there should be no question in the current circumstances of running down the full-time reserve?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that we have already committed a further £10 million to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Discussions are continuing, and there is a likelihood of further resources later in the year. The Chief Constable assures me that while the voluntary severance programme is being effected, the police's continuing service to the community, including implementing community policing, will remain efficient, effective and accountable.
    The Royal Ulster Constabulary has recently been laid to rest and the Police Service of Northern Ireland has come into being. As we approach Remembrance Sunday, I wish to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery and professionalism of the RUC. More than 300 RUC police officers have been killed in the line of duty; hundreds more have been injured.
    I look forward to working with the new Police Service of Northern Ireland in future, and I am sure that the RUC's professionalism and dedication will continue to be demonstrated by the officers of the new service.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Jo Moore
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the continued employment of Jo Moore as a special adviser to a Cabinet Minister.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have nothing to add to what I said two weeks ago on this subject.
    Dr. Lewis: What a disappointing reply that is, especially as so many hon. Members, including the Father of the House, believe that today would be a very good day to bury Jo Moore as a special adviser, and the discredited Minister for whom she works. As that is not going to happen, will the Prime Minister confirm that Jo Moore was present at the meeting between the Transport Secretary and the chairman of Railtrack on 25 July? Will he arrange for the minutes of that meeting to be published today?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know who was present at that meeting. No doubt if the hon. Gentleman tables a question on the matter, it will be answered. As for the first part of his question, I am afraid that I disagree with him.

    Engagements
    Paddy Tipping: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 November.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, I shall go to America to meet President Bush.
    Paddy Tipping: Will the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues arrange to meet the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf, when he is in London this week? Will my right hon. Friend use the opportunity to discuss the President's desire for a short, concise campaign in Afghanistan, and to stress and strengthen the importance of the other two strands of the campaign, namely forging stronger diplomatic links and bringing about more efficient delivery of humanitarian aid?
    The Prime Minister: President Musharraf has taken a very brave and principled stand in respect of the coalition's efforts in Afghanistan. It has not been easy for him, and I pay tribute to his leadership in doing so. I want to assure my hon. Friend and, indeed, President Musharraf, that we shall work with Pakistan in terms of humanitarian aid, which is enormously important, and of an operation in which Pakistan is presently bearing an enormous burden. We shall also work with them to ensure that, once the regime headed by Mullah Omar departs from Afghanistan, we can have in place a broad-based regime, with a Pashtun element in it. I believe that Pakistan can help us in that regard. I certainly support the stand that the President has taken and we shall make clear our support in the meetings that we have with him this week.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister still have full confidence in his Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions?
    The Prime Minister: Yes.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is amazing that the Prime Minister can go on expressing full confidence in a man whose judgment is so bad that it led him to keep Jo Moore while dumping his respected director of information. That same man was attacked only yesterday by the chairman of Railtrack—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They do not want to listen to this, but the truth is that this same man was attacked yesterday by the chairman of Railtrack, who said that the Minister's—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have order in the Chamber
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The chairman of Railtrack said that the Minister's account of their meeting was not true. This is the same man—he has got form—of whom the chairman of BMW said that he had completely misrepresented a crucial conversation between them. This is the man whose recollection of conversations and meetings had got so bad that the Select Committee on

    231
    Trade and Industry recommended that his telephone should be tapped. What does it take for the Prime Minister to lose confidence in a Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Let us deal, for the moment, with the substance of the Secretary of State's decision. At the time Railtrack came to us, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it had already asked for £1.5 billion worth of investment and we had agreed to that. It had also announced that it would have to increase substantially the amount of money on the west coast main line. It then indicated that Railtrack's deficit by next March, even if all that additional money were put in, would be £1.7 billion. In those circumstances, it was quite clear that the company could not carry on as before. Therefore, the decision was taken, by my right hon. Friend, to make sure that we put both the finances and the structure of the company on a sound footing for the future.
    It may be the case—I believe that it is—that the Conservative party is saying that the shareholders should be given their demand of £3.60 a share. Let me explain to the House what that would mean. If we acceded to that demand, it would literally mean taking £1 billion or more of taxpayers' money—£50 for every household in the country—and giving it to the shareholders. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is his policy, and justify it?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: This is enlightening: the Prime Minister avoided any reference to the Secretary of State; and, worse still, he did not back up what the Secretary of State said about his meeting with the chairman of Railtrack. The Secretary of State stood by and watched as small investors and railway employees bought shares which he knew were worthless, because he had already decided to send Railtrack to the wall. The Secretary of State's conduct has been so bad that the Financial Services Authority is now having to investigate allegations that he misled investors. Is it not the latest example of behaviour of a Minister who is addicted to spin and, when the spin fails, there is no remorse, no regret and no resignation? Will the Prime Minister recognise once and for all that, to all decent people, the Secretary of State represents the unacceptable face of new Labour?
    The Prime Minister: First, I certainly do stand by what the Secretary of State said. Secondly, the shareholders—[interruption] The issue is as I have just described to the right hon. Gentleman: the company was in effect bust. That is clear. It wanted more and more money; indeed, it wanted effectively an open-ended guarantee of extra taxpayers' money.
    The shareholders want not sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman but money from the Government. That is perfectly acceptable. As I understand it, the Conservative party's position is that it backs the shareholders' claim for £3.60 a share. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the issue."] With respect, that is the issue. Does one accept that and hand the £1 billion over, or not accept it? We believe that the £1 billion is better spent on the railways. If the right
    232
    hon. Gentleman believes that it is better spent on the shareholders, despite the fact that the company is effectively insolvent, let him get to his feet and say so.
    Mr. John Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the tragic and unnecessary death last year of my constituent, PC John Antony Thomas, who died after contracting deep vein thrombosis on a return flight from his honeymoon in Hawaii? PC Thomas was only 30 years old. He had just had a thorough police medical check and had been given an Al bill of health. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing public concern about DVT among airline passengers since the death of my constituent? Emma Christoffersen, aged 28; Nigel Walcott, aged 40; Arwyn Thomas, aged 28; and the 45 other people—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister will be able to answer the question.
    The Prime Minister: I should like first to express through my hon. Friend my condolences to the families of his constituents who have died as he described. As he probably knows, United Kingdom long-haul airlines have taken a series of measures to address the issue. Although we do not intend to have a separate inquiry ourselves, the World Health Organisation is conducting specific research into the problem and we intend to participate in that programme.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: A fortnight ago, the Prime Minister replied to me that the humanitarian aspects of the Afghanistan campaign were every bit as important as the military ones. That being so, what effort is he making to ensure that the £700 million of multilateral aid that has been pledged is getting through? As current reports show that less than half of that aid has reached the places that it should, will the Prime Minister back President Chirac's call this morning for a high-level donor meeting at the first opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: I do think that the idea of a donor meeting is sound, and it is one of the things that we discussed the other evening when President Chirac was at No. 10 Downing street. I also believe that it is essential that the humanitarian aid gets through. The money is pledged, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, and additional efforts are being made by the World Food Programme to get food through. It has very substantially increased those efforts and is now running well over 1,000 tonnes per day.
    The present difficulty, however, is that even if that food and other aid go in, by their actions the Taliban are obstructing that aid from reaching those for whom it is intended. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the Taliban authorities to do everything that they possibly can to co-operate with the UN aid agencies and to ensure that the food that is there for delivery to people in Afghanistan actually reaches its destination.
    Mr. Kennedy: The whole House and the whole country will of course agree with that last sentiment. I think that, on the military side, many of them will also share the great sense of public and international unease

    233
    about the recent use of cluster bombs. Later today, when the Prime Minister sees the President of the United States, will he seek an assurance that no more of them will be deployed?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not seek that assurance. Cluster bombs have been used in five instances, one in respect of a terrorist training camp and the other four in respect of front-line Taliban troops. They are not what are called sub-munition cluster bombs; in other words, the bombs that have been used explode on impact. They are weapons that are legal, and they are necessary in certain specific circumstances.
    I tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have told others when they have raised such issues. There is no easy or pleasant way of fighting this type of conflict. The single most important thing now is that we take whatever action we possibly can to ensure that the Taliban troops are weakened and that those who represent the forces opposed to them can move forward. I believe that that is happening. The air strikes have done immense damage to the terrorist networks of al-Qaeda and to the whole machinery and military infrastructure of the Taliban.
    If we want this conflict to be brought quickly to an end, we have to fight it vigorously. We will fight it by doing everything that we possibly can to minimise civilian casualties. That is what we do, and the vast majority of the bombs dropped in Afghanistan are nowhere near civilian areas, never mind targeted on civilians. Nevertheless, the plain fact is that it is not easy in any conflict to avoid civilian casualties entirely. The difference between us and al-Qaeda and the Taliban is that we try to minimise civilian casualties; bin Laden and his people try to maximise them.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking time out from an extremely busy schedule to sign the pledge in recognition of Muslim Awareness Week? What type of signal is sent out when the Leader of the Opposition fails to turn up and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The actions of the Leader of the Opposition are not the Prime Minister's responsibility.
    Tim Loughton: Can we now ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with the assertion of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that the current state of Railtrack can he blamed on the directors? If he does, how on earth can he explain why in October the chairman of Railtrack, John Robinson, was offered the job of heading the new not-for-profit company?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has exclusively blamed the directors. Indeed, I think that he has cast his net rather more widely. I think that a large part of the blame should be laid on the party that privatised the railways in the first place.
    As for Mr. Robinson, he is undoubtedly someone of very great ability, but the fact of the matter is that the company was not solvent. We had a simple choice, which is what the Opposition want to obscure: were we to carry
    234
    on putting vast sums of public money into a failed company, or were we to assert that the public interest must come first?
    Mr. Colin Challen: I know that my right hon. Friend is not the world's greatest fan of the Tobin tax, but does he agree that we in this country should lead in finding new ways of funding development aid? If—dread the day—a Conservative Government ever returned to power, the first thing that they would cut is development aid.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on this at least: development aid is extremely important. We have increased it by some 45 per cent., it is rising as a proportion of national income, and it is making a big difference in different parts of the world. Thanks to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, we have also done an immense amount on debt relief for the poorest parts of the world. I hope and believe that we can do more with other countries.
    All I would say about the international financial system is that I think that what most of the poorest countries of the world want is greater access to western markets. We should make that a part of the new World Trade Organisation negotiations.
    Mr. Mark Francois: What comfort can the Prime Minister offer my constituents in South Woodham Ferrers, who overwhelmingly oppose plans by the Liberal-run Chelmsford borough council to force 1,700 new houses into their town against their will? For his part, will the Prime Minister consider abolishing Labour's national housing targets, which force ever more houses into local communities against the wishes of the people who actually live there?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot comment—indeed, I do not want to comment—on the Liberal council in the hon. Gentleman's area20 [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I will resist that temptation.
    The hon. Gentleman's points were obviously put to him very strongly by his constituents, but whatever Government are in power, over a long period, they must balance the issues. They must balance planning and new construction with the desire of people already in housing developments not to have new people moving in. As a matter of fact, we have adopted a very balanced approach—overall, I think, a rather more balanced approach than that of the last Government.
    Let me say to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest respect that, while I know that there are difficulties in all these areas, I do not think that we could have a blanket ban on any new build at all. I do not think that that would be sensible. We have to strike a balance, and I believe that we have.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: When my right hon. Friend meets President Bush, will he put high on the agenda the plight of hundreds and thousands of Afghans, caused by the failure of food to get through to villages in Afghanistan?
    The Prime Minister: I looked at the exact figures earlier when I was replying to the right hon. Member for

    235
    Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). The World Food Programme has dispatched some 32,000 tonnes of food in the last month and 12,000 tonnes in the last week, so it is beginning to get more food through.
    Mr. Kessler, spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has said:
    "the aid is not being delivered in the quantities needed. What we would like from the Taleban is the return of our offices and assets and a guarantee that our people on the ground won't be hassled by armed men"
    It is clear what the obstacle is, and I hope very much that the Taliban will listen to those words and act on them.
    The food is there, and we will make every effort to get it through. I think that the idea of a donor conference—suggested, I believe, by President Bush as well as President Chirac—is very sensible. But in the end, for getting the food to Afghanistan and the people inside it, we depend not just on the donors but on those in charge of vast tracts of Afghanistan, namely the Taliban, to allow the food through.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Secretary of State for Health when he says that the winter crisis in the NHS now
    "begins in July and ends in June"
    The Prime Minister: The point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was making—which was absolutely right—was that it is important with the extra pressures on the health service to make sure that we get the extra beds into the health service and the extra nurses and doctors. That is precisely why we committed ourselves to the substantial additional investment in the health service that he and his party opposed.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister misses the whole point. All those patients who have to queue up for the NHS know that it is not improving and all his words do not change anything. In far too many areas, as patients also know, it is getting worse. His own Department's figures show that the number of patients now being treated in routine operations is at a standstill. One in four patients are now waiting for more than six months and the number is rising. The British Medical Association said only a few days ago that the Government have no chance of meeting their six-month in-patient target set just before the election last year. Given the evidence provided by his own Department's figures, are not members of the public entitled to ask where all the money has gone?
    The Prime Minister: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman exactly where the money has gone, and since he wants me to use the Department's figures, I will. Since 1997, there have been more than 500,000 more operations, more than 1 million more new out-patient appointments and more than 250,000 more emergency admissions. Cataract replacement operations are up 33 per cent., heart operations up 14 per cent., knee replacements up 22 per cent., waiting lists are down by more than 100,000, and there are 17,000 more nurses and almost 7,000 more doctors. Of course, there are still fundamental problems in many parts of the health service, but the additional money that has gone in has yielded those
    236
    benefits. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the difference between us is that we want the money to go in and he wants to take it out.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: There he goes again, always reeling off endless figures and endless nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman talks again of more time and more money, but patients who have to queue up know that it is not working. Worse than that, doctors also know that it is not working. I have a letter from an orthopaedic surgeon who writes:
    "It seems to be a complete nightmare at the moment. We seem to be resourced for lots of things other than treating our patients.
    That is the real point. Is not it true—what that surgeon writes and what patients see—that when it comes to reforming our health service the reality is that the Prime Minister is long on words but short on delivery? If he cares to listen, he will understand that that is because he and his party are wedded to dogma and they put that before the needs of patients. They do not care about patients and, as a result, the crisis in the NHS is for life, not just for Christmas.
    The Prime Minister: Well, he read it, he did not read it well, and it was not worth reading anyway. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the money has had no impact at all, that is wrong. As a result of that money, there are more nurses and doctors, there are more people being treated, accident and emergency departments have seen real changes and so have GP premises. Of course, there is a long way to go, because four or five years ago the number of beds had been cut, the number of nurses had been cut, there were no new hospitals being built and there was underfunding in the health service. All that will cure that is the money going in and the changes being made. The difference between us is that we are committed to that money and the right hon. Gentleman is committed to taking it back out.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I express to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues my gratitude for, and appreciation of, their efforts to repair the damage caused to the mining community by the previous Conservative Government? A lot has been done, but much remains to be done. Will he comment on the delay in payment of compensation to miners crippled with chronic bronchitis and emphysema? Will he also address the matter of compensation for the dependants of mineworkers who have passed away? Those dependants are entitled to compensation. Finally, will he also address the delays in the payment of compensation to people suffering from vibration white finger?
    The Prime Minister: The total amount of compensation already paid out for respiratory disease and vibration white finger is somewhere in the region of £600 million, and £1 million is being paid out every day. There are still delays with some of the claims because each claim has to be individually validated, but I agree with the implication in the first part of my hon. Friend's question: over the past few years, this Government have done a massive amount to assist the mining communities. Money has been made available for regeneration and for new job and community projects and, as I said earlier, more than £600 million has been used to deal specifically with miners' diseases. That means that the total invested

    237
    in mining communities over the past few years, specifically on issues related to the mining industry, has reached about £1.5 billion. There is still more that we need to do, but I hope that he would be one of the first to accept that, although a lot remains to be done, we have none the less done a considerable amount. We intend to do more.
    Richard Ottaway: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anxiety and trauma being experienced by millions of policy holders with the Equitable Life assurance society? He has rightly established an inquiry under Lord Penrose to look into what many people perceive to be a catastrophic regulatory failure. With that in mind, does he stand by the statement made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who said that the Government had an open mind about compensation?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I stand by whatever my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has said. The Financial Services Authority report has already been published, and the inquiry that we have established will get to the facts. It is on the basis of the facts that we then must make up our minds about what the Government's response should be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that a reasonable way to proceed.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: As many of our young men and women face conflict in Afghanistan, is my right hon. Friend aware that, at home, almost 900 young Britons lose their personal battles against heroin every year? Will he make it clear to the Northern Alliance and others that any peace settlement must ensure that the murderous trade in heroin ceases immediately?
    The Prime Minister: I have two things to say in response to my hon. Friend. First, what has happened since 11 September has had more than a merely economic effect. One of the major reasons for relating what is happening to Afghanistan to our own national interest is the drugs trade, and the fact that 90 per cent. of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan.
    Secondly, the experience of countries such as Pakistan has shown that it is possible to take action to stamp out the drugs trade, and its growth in particular countries. One of the things that we must do in the reconstruction of
    238
    Afghanistan is to give people there the chance to make a decent livelihood out of proper agriculture and not out of the drugs trade.
    Mr. David Heath: The Prime Minister has been arguing, rightly, on behalf of democracy around the world. Will he now turn his mind to democracy in this country? Can he give me three good reasons why the second Chamber of this democratic Parliament should not be elected, rather than appointed or anointed?
    The Prime Minister: The first reason would be that the cross-party royal commission under Lord Wakeham specifically recommended that the House of Lords should not be wholly elected. The second reason is that I think that it is important that the House of Lords is not made up simply of full-time politicians, but should represent a broader range of influences. The third reason is that I believe that the House of Lords should be a deliberating and revising Chamber, as it is now, and that it should not be a replica of the House of Commons.
    David Taylor: Does the Prime Minister believe that the mob violence that we saw from elected politicians in Stormont yesterday will have any long-term effect on the prospects for peace and stability in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: No is the short answer—at least, I hope that it is the right answer. Rather than look at those unfortunate scenes that we saw on the television, we should be better focused on the enormous step forward that was taken in Northern Ireland yesterday. I pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend has done as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I pay particular tribute to the Ulster Unionist party and all those who have taken part in putting the institutions back on their feet again: the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance, the Women's Coalition, Sinn Fein and others, all of whom have worked to make sure that the peace process in Northern Ireland is allowed to move forward again. We have only to look at what has happened in a different part of the world—the middle east—to see what happens when a peace process breaks down. Whatever scuffles and slightly unseemly incidents may have taken place yesterday, we should take great comfort from the fact that the institutions are back up and running again, with a First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will welcome that most of all.

House of Lords Reform
3.31 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I shall make a statement on further reform of the House of Lords.
In the previous Parliament we began to reform the House of Lords with an historic step that ended the dominant vote of hereditary peers. I freely acknowledge the generous help of Viscount Cranborne in making that step easier. However, we were always clear that that step was only the first phase of reform. There remains much more that requires reform.
There remain 92 hereditary peers, and there is no place in Parliament for those who owe their presence there solely to privilege of birth. The largest single party in the House of Lords has twice been voted into opposition in the House of Commons, and the second Chamber should more fairly represent how Britain votes. No Member of the House of Lords has been elected by the public to represent them there.
Today the Government launch the second phase of reform of the House of Lords with the publication of a White Paper, "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform", copies of which are available in the Vote Office. We ask for comments on all or any of the proposals, especially the overall composition of the new House of Lords, by the end of January.
At the outset, I recognise the major contribution of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in overseeing today's White Paper. It builds on the report of the Wakeham Commission, and its central principle is that reform of the House of Lords should preserve the present balance of power between the two Chambers. We do not need a second Chamber that merely mirrors the House of Commons; nor do we want a House of Lords that could challenge the right of this House to be the representative body of the British people.
The House of Commons will remain the pre-eminent Chamber, with the sole right to pass legislation on taxation and the final right to decide on all other legislation. The right to form a Government of the United Kingdom will continue to depend on whether that Government can command a majority in the House of Commons.
The House of Lords will remain a Chamber of revision, of scrutiny and of deliberation. It will retain the power to delay, but not to block, Government legislation. It should continue to be bound by the convention that it does not oppose the Government on a manifesto commitment for which the party in office has an election mandate. Its powers over secondary legislation will be changed from one of veto to one of delay to put that on the same footing as primary legislation.
The Government accept the conclusion of the Wakeham Commission that our two objectives of promoting reform of the House of Lords while preserving the pre-eminence of the House of Commons will be best achieved by a mixed membership of elected and appointed Members of the second Chamber. The White Paper invites comments on the overall balance between independent Members, elected Members and appointed party Members.
240
The retention of independent Members who can speak from a range of expertise and authority is important if the House of Lords is to continue its distinctive contribution to national debate. We therefore propose to put on a statutory basis an Appointments Commission to nominate independent Members, who will constitute a fifth of the reformed Chamber.
The Appointments Commission will be independent of Government and accountable to Parliament, not to Ministers. It will be under a statutory duty to ensure that all new appointments contain a minimum of 30 per cent. of both women and men and a fair representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and its ethnic communities. Those requirements will also apply to all future party nominations. This will ensure a second Chamber that is representative of United Kingdom society as it is today. not as it was yesterday.
The Wakeham Commission recommended that there should be elected Members to provide a direct voice for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom in the House of Lords. A majority of the royal commission supported option B, which provided for 87 elected Members. The White Paper proposes that that number be increased to 120. This is the first time that any Government have made proposals for the introduction of elected Members to the second Chamber.
The White Paper invites views on whether the elected Members should be returned on polling day for the European Parliament, on general election day or on polling day for the devolved and regional bodies in those parts of the United Kingdom where they are established.
The Government believe that the proportion of appointed party Members should broadly match the distribution of votes between the parties at the most recent general election. We will empower the Appointments Commission to validate those proportions independently. That will remove from the Government of the day the right to determine for themselves the political balance of new appointments. Never again will it be possible for a Government to use political appointments to give themselves a secure majority in the House of Lords, as the Conservative party did throughout the 1980s and 1990s, nor will a Government ever again be able to dominate voting in the second Chamber.
Our proposals for independent Members chosen by an Appointments Commission and for elected Members returned by proportional representation will guarantee that no party, including a sitting Government, will ever have a majority of the votes in the new second Chamber. That will ensure that the reformed Chamber will be a more effective check and balance on the Government than was possible during the years that the Conservative party was in government.
All new appointed Members will be appointed for a fixed term. That will end the practice of someone being appointed to Parliament for life. The royal commission recommended that the term of appointment be 15 years. That would be a long period—longer than for any other public appointment in the UK. The White Paper therefore invites comments on whether the term of appointment to the reformed Chamber should be 15, five or 10 years. No new Member of the reformed second Chamber will become a member of the peerage by virtue of their membership. The link between a title and a seat in Parliament will finally be severed.

241
We propose that the reformed Chamber be capped at 600 Members, after a transitional period of 10 years. In line with the conclusion of the Wakeham Commission, we propose to reduce the number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords from 26 to 16. The Law Lords will continue to be Members of the Chamber.
The White Paper invites comments on two other issues. First, we invite views on whether to retain the present system of daily expenses for Members of the House of Lords or to move to a more formal system of payment in view of the new requirement for elected Members from all parts of the UK. Secondly, we invite views on the circumstances in which a Member should be removed from membership of the second Chamber, such as the expulsion of any Member sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
"Completing the Reform" contains the Government's proposals for a House of Lords for the future, but Parliament belongs to the British people. It is right that we should now consult the British people on the design of the second Chamber of their Parliament.
Those proposals will produce far-reaching reform of the House of Lords. They will remove the last of the hereditary peers from Parliament. They will introduce the first ever elected Members to the House of Lords. They will put the appointment of independent Members outside political patronage. They will ensure that the British electorate voting in a general election, not the Government of the day, decide the proportions in which party appointments are made. They will give Britain a modern second Chamber, which will be able to complement the Commons, but unable to compete with it for power. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Eric Forth:I thank the Leader of the House for letting me have an advance copy of the statement and the White Paper.
The Leader of the House has recently been posturing, not least in the press, as a democrat and a great parliamentary reformer. That leads immediately to the question whether he is content with the 20 per cent. elected element in the proposals that he has put before the House. When the hereditary peers were eliminated we were told that they were an affront to democracy, so the question arises as to whether the Leader of the House and the Government are content that their proposed format for the upper House is any less of an affront.
Is the statement exactly the same as the one being given in another place? It would be instructive to know of any variation. Is the statement the work of the autocrat at the other end of the building, the Lord Chancellor, or the democrat and reformer, the Leader of the House? It strikes me that the White Paper comes as neither one thing nor another—it is a fudge.
The Government have generously—not—allowed us until 31 January 2002 for consultation on this very complex and important matter. Does the Leader of the House seriously suggest that from now until the end of January gives sufficient time for all the varied and legitimate interests to make their considered views known to the Government? That is surely an insult and an absurdity.
In that context, what happened to the Joint Committee of both Houses that was supposed to consider these matters? We have heard nothing of it today, and I am not
242
surprised. The Government made a commitment to it in July 2000; they renewed that commitment in March 2001, but it has now been quietly dropped. Why? Surely the answer is that the abbreviated and truncated period of so-called consultation is presumably designed to replace an approach by a Joint Committee that would at least allow the possibility of cross-party agreement, which the Government have always said that they want to achieve. Indeed, they repeat that in the White Paper.
What support does the Leader of the House think his proposals will attract in the parliamentary Labour party? He will no doubt be aware, as we all are, of early-day motion 226, which at the last count had 149 signatures, most from Members of his party. They seem to want a wholly, or at least largely, elected upper House. How will he satisfy his parliamentary colleagues with the contents of the White Paper? I think that we should know.
The Government suggest an upper House with an eventual limit of 600, with 120 elected and 120 Cross Benchers plus the Law Lords and the bishops. That leaves about 300 others, although currently there are about 560 in the remaining category. That leads to an interesting question, which I do not think is answered in the White Paper: when the 600 limit is finally implemented, will new Members be appointed only on the demise of existing Members? That will obviously have an important effect on all the mechanisms outlined in the White Paper.
The White Paper suggests at one and the same time that there will be 600 Members, that that total will come into force after 10 years, that during the 10-year transition period there will be a maximum of 750 Members and that there must always be a lead for the governing party over the main opposition party in membership of the upper House, although current life peers will retain their membership for life. However, there could easily be at least two general elections during the 10-year transition period. The White Paper also asserts that the potential membership must reflect party balance at each previous election
For the life of me; I cannot see—perhaps the Leader of the House will explain—how on earth one can fulfil all those requirements without them conflicting and undermining one another. They strike me as completely and utterly inconsistent
The Leader of the House made great play of the Appointments Commission and the key role that it will play in the process, but how will the initial Appointments Commission be appointed? Will it be appointed by the House of Lords as currently constituted? Will that be done by a motion of that House? Will that House be able to vote on or amend that motion? Even if one were to accept the intention to create the permanent Appointments Commission, of which great play is made in the White Paper, if not the reality of that—a great deal of further scrutiny is required—the initial Appointments Commission will be crucial and we must know more about it.
A minor question that arises from page 25 of the White Paper is the intriguing statement that
"the Appointments Commission will ensure that at least 30 per cent. of new appointees are women and 30 per cent. are men".
The mind boggles as to what the rest will be, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will be able to satisfy us on that matter with his usual facility.

243
We would not have started where the Government started in this process—that is clear. We thought phase 1 ill-conceived, but we gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and believed that phase 2 would be taken seriously and done properly. We all share an interest in having the most effective upper House possible, but what has been proposed today falls far short of that. It satisfies no criteria that even the Government set out. It satisfies few criteria set out by the Wakeham Commission. All in all, it is an enormous disappointment.
There is a danger that the proposal will provide a fig leaf of democracy over what continues to be a largely unrepresentative appointed body. At worst, we shall have a continuation and indeed an institutionalisation of Tony's cronies. The Government should either withdraw the White Paper or at the very least refer it to a Joint Committee of both Houses, which was always intended to be the vehicle by which this reform would proceed.
Mr. Cook: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks for making the document available to him. I start by trying to build on the narrow basis of consensus between us.
On the question of the consultation ending on 31 January, that date is three months away, but no one is starting out with a fresh sheet of paper as though they had only just started thinking about these matters. The debate has been going on for four years and it is three years since the royal commission was set up. By now, the Opposition should at least have some idea of what they want to say by 31 January. We are putting the White Paper out for consultation, but it would not be satisfactory for that consultation to be confined to a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses. I want to extend it to the public and want civil society, the devolved bodies and local authorities to take part.
It is important that we cap the upper House at 600; the number should not indefinitely expand with each election. The cap will impose a discipline, and we have accepted that discipline. Even though we are in our fifth year in office, we have still not matched the number of Conservative peers in the House of Lords. We have accepted that as a restraint on us and we will recognise it until we ensure that we have the numbers available in the House of Lords to be replaced by those who will provide a balance that reflects the way in which the nation voted in the general election.
I did not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman would like the reference to a minimum of 30 per cent. women and I was right, but everyone on the Labour Benches, and many on the Opposition Benches, support a statutory requirement that there should be fair play so that both genders are adequately represented in the House of Lords. If some hon. Members find that an offensive principle, I look forward to the debates in Committee.
As for the rest of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I can only say that I genuinely admire his brass neck. It is a new departure for the Conservatives to say that they want a more robust and effective Opposition in the House of Lords. In office, they so packed it with their placemen and, occasionally, placewomen that they received total support and even managed to get the poll tax through without a murmur.
244
As the right hon. Gentleman said, in opposition the Conservatives have resisted every Government attempt to remove the hereditary peers. They so much disliked what Viscount Cranborne did that they sacked him for it. They voted against Second Reading and Third Reading of the House of Lords Act 1999, which gave effect to reform, and the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who voted against.
In 18 years, the Conservatives never once proposed that there should be a single elected Member of the House of Lords and never once made a single proposal for reform. Now we are invited to believe that they want a more democratic House of Lords than that proposed. If that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman must answer a simple question, or perhaps one of his colleagues who takes part in these exchanges will do so: what proportion of elected Members would they support?
I know that the Conservatives find that question difficult, because we heard the Leader of the Opposition in House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, say this morning that they cannot agree on what proportion should be elected.
Mr. Forth: indicated dissent.
Mr. Cook: Lord Strathclyde did indeed say precisely that. He said that the Conservatives have not agreed what proportion should be elected.
I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have three months for consultation. I want to build a cross-party consensus. I look forward to discussing with the Opposition their plans for a democratic House of Lords, when they have plans to discuss. I hope that they can produce them in the next three months.
Rosemary McKenna:I welcome the statement made by the Leader of the House. This is a very exciting day, because many of us have campaigned for such reform for years and it is wonderful to see how it is being conducted. I congratulate him on the way in which he is carrying out the consultation, because bringing the rest of the country with us and showing how we want to change the House of Lords is crucial.
May I express my astonishment at the position of the shadow Leader of the House on the 30 per cent. quota? His comments show his complete misunderstanding of equality of opportunity and gender. He does not understand the issue at all. May I ask the Leader of the House about his comment on breaking the link between being a Member of the House of Lords and a member of the peerage? Everyone will welcome that, but how does he propose to deal with the title of the House of Lords? I believe, and many people agree, that it is wrong that individuals should be called your lordship, baroness or whatever. Perhaps that is going a bit far, but should not we consider changing the title of the House of Lords? Is that part of the consultation? Are we inviting comment?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is too long.
Mr. Cook: I would have been happy had my hon. Friend been able to continue, Mr. Speaker.
First, I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the consultation and I share her view that the broad majority of the people of Britain will welcome the commitment to

245
gender equality. On the title, we say in the White Paper that the honours system will continue, but it will do so independently of the House of Lords. We have not made any proposal in the White Paper on the title of the House of Lords. The Wakeham Commission said that the title of the second Chamber should be allowed freely and naturally to evolve. I would not wish rapidly to cut short that process of free evolution, but I am sure that during the consultation views will be expressed, which we can include in our response.
Mr. Paul Tyler:I welcome the White Paper and the statement and thank the Leader of the House for giving us copies in advance. I particularly welcome the White Paper's emphasis on what the body should do, rather than who should do it. I shall no doubt return to that.
Does the Leader of the House recall the explicit promise he made in 1997 to produce
"a democratic and representative second chamber".
I am sure that the House recognises that the rats have got at it since then, but I should not like to say at which end of the building they have been gnawing away. However, the White Paper now refers to making
"it more representative and democratic".
It could hardly be less.
Does the Leader of the House accept that that is not the promise given in the 1997 manifesto and in the agreement made with the Liberal Democrats? Does he accept that the formula proposed—120, less than a fifth of the total of 750 at the beginning of the process—meets neither the 1997 manifesto commitment nor that in the 2001 manifesto, on which Labour Members stood for election by the public just a few months ago? Does he subscribe to the ludicrous view, expounded this morning on the "Today" programme by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that elections are somehow undemocratic because turnout is so low in safe seats? Does he really want to continue to appoint Archers and Ashcrofts to that body or is he prepared to accept that direct democracy is a more preferable way to ensure that the second Chamber is a true part of a parliamentary democracy?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that it will be ridiculous if the parameters for consultation on the composition of the second Chamber are set just above or below 120? Surely the consultation must provide an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House—especially, perhaps, those on the Labour Benches—to show that many of us believe that that is totally inadequate. The fact that the Conservatives cannot come up with a figure is an additional reason for the rest of us to consider establishing a more democratic House.
While accepting, as we all do, that the pre-eminence of this House is important, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the White Paper is absurdly cautious in finding ways to guarantee it? There are other options. Disentangling appointments from general elections would clearly make it much easier for this House to be demonstrably the first House.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that an element of indirect election from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Authority and the English regional authorities, which we hope will be created soon, would ensure greater democratic legitimacy?
246
In short, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, for the health of Parliament, we must go further than this timid step? Otherwise, we will have to return again and again to what is unfinished business. Does he realise that he is perpetuating instability at the heart of our parliamentary democracy by going only so far?
Mr. Cook: Let me respond first to the hon. Gentleman's specific points before concentrating on his central thesis. The Wakeham Commission took evidence on indirect elections to the House of Lords and found no enthusiasm for it, although the devolved bodies had just been set up. We refer to that in the White Paper. It is open to devolved bodies and other regional bodies to respond to the consultation. Obviously, if they are interested in pursuing that indirect route we can reflect on that when we formulate our response. It is a brute fact—a reality—that the great majority of England does not have a regional body or elections to such a body, which inhibits the extent to which we can go down that road.
I read our manifesto with great care and we said that we would seek to implement the Wakeham report in the most effective way possible. That is what we are trying to do this afternoon.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on his central point. Although he did not use these words, in effect he wants a House of Lords that is wholly democratically elected. Many in his party would agree, and many would not. It is a legitimate view and I respect the sincerity of those who hold it, but they should be honest with themselves and the House.
I cannot conceive of a wholly elected House of Lords that would not regard itself as having a legitimacy equal to that of the House of Commons. It is impossible to think of such a Chamber accepting that it could not legislate on taxation or that it could only delay legislation, not throw it out. A significant change in the balance between the two Chambers would be involved. I do not regard my role as Leader of the House of Commons as presiding over such an historic shift in its powers.
Fiona Mactaggart: I note that the White Paper's title is "Completing the Reform", but we have three months to discuss the completion. What will the Leader of the House do if the overwhelming response to his consultation is that he should go further, to at least the top level suggested in the Wakeham report for the proportion of elected Members?
Mr. Cook:It would be very unhealthy to begin to speculate about the hypothetical response to the hypothetical expression of a view in the consultation. I can only say to my hon. Friend that we are genuine about the consultation. That is why we published the White Paper, and said at the start of it that all its proposals will be put out for consultation. At the end of the White Paper there are six separate, specific questions on issues on which we want advice and views. One of the questions asks, "Is the proportion right between independent Members, elected Members and the party appointments?" I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an answer to that and that she will encourage others to express their views, as she has done in her early-day motion. We will certainly take those views into account in our response.
Sir Peter Tapsell: As one of the very few Members left in the House who voted for

247
the Bill on the renunciation of peerages that enabled Tony Benn, Alec Douglas-Home and Quintin Hogg to return to this Chamber, and who subsequently voted for the introduction of life peers, I regard the constitutional proposals as wholly unsatisfactory. They do not go nearly far enough down the democratic path. [Laughter.] I have been arguing this case for 40 years.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of any other major democratic country in which the second Chamber is not overwhelmingly in numbers elected? Does he not understand that the fundamental flaw in the proposals is that the various categories of Member will speak and vote in the House of Lords with different degrees of authority, and that any elected Member of the second Chamber will inevitably tend to be dismissive of criticisms made by placemen?
Mr. Cook: A large number of second Chambers around the world have a mixed membership.
Sir Peter Tapsell: The majority? Name one.
Mr. Cook: I said a large number. I do not dispute that the majority are elected, either wholly or in part, although many of the elections are indirect. However, there are many with a mixed membership, and there is no evidence of such membership resulting in a distinction or invidious division between the Members.
I have a great respect for the antiquity and experience with which the hon. Gentleman speaks to the House, but he should, in fairness, acknowledge that during the great many years on which he sat on this side of the Chamber, under a Conservative Government, he never successfully persuaded them to introduce the reforms that we propose. I suggest, therefore, that those who were unable to take action when they had the opportunity to do so should be a little humble before they dismiss our proposals.
Mr. Dennis SkinnerIs the Leader of the House aware that I have been considering this matter for some time? In fact, it dates back to October 1976, when he, I and many others at the Labour party conference voted by 6 million to 6,000—this was in the days of the wonderful block vote—to abolish the House of Lords. I am not in favour of the elected system or of a system in which the chattering classes will reproduce themselves in the House of Lords. I believe in the third way: get rid of it, and try this out in a post-Taliban Afghanistan.
Mr. Cook:I blame myself for not bringing this statement to the House on Monday, when my hon. Friend could have put forward the Guy Fawkes option, which he plainly favours. I understand full well why he and so many others want to see change at the other end of the Corridor. Unlike my hon. Friend, most of those who have followed the debate agree that there is a case for a second Chamber as a place of revision, and its disappearance, without anything to replace it, would put an added burden on this Chamber. We make these proposals to try to ensure that we have a second Chamber that works as a complement, not a competitor, to the Commons.
Mr. Douglas Hogg:Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that those of
248
us who believe in accountable government are deeply disappointed by his statement? Does he not understand that at a time when we have a presidential system of government, not a parliamentary system, the powers of Parliament should be enhanced, not cut? Does he not understand that the only proper basis for political authority these days is election? Finally, does he not understand that when he talks about the primacy of this House, in reality he means the primacy of the Government of the day? What we want—I have made this argument since the first day I entered Parliament in 1979—is a greatly enhanced second Chamber, wholly or largely elected and with greatly extended political powers.
Mr. Cook: I only ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why he never understood his own questions in all the long years that he was in government.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the fact that he has made it clear that the future of the second Chamber lies in its being a revising Chamber that acts as a check and balance in our system, not a rival to this House. I also welcome the quota for women Members. May I take this opportunity to urge him to consider the deficits in the representation of ethnic minority communities, as well as the lack of proper regional representation? Finally, does he agree that it is wholly pointless for Members to bleat about the absence of a Joint Committee when they have spent the past four years sabotaging any prospect of such a Committee being established?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's final point is correct: we proposed the establishment of a Joint Committee in the last Parliament but were unable to reach agreement with the other parties on its terms of reference.
I fully endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about the progress that the reform will achieve in terms of the representation within Parliament of ethnic communities across Britain. We have made good progress on that with House of Lords appointments in recent years, but we remain some way short of a membership of the second Chamber that is fully representative of the ethnic communities. At this tense international moment, we all understand how valuable it would be to have them fully represented.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem of voter apathy would be made far worse if the system of election were to be the wholly discredited party list system? If that system were adopted, would we face the ridiculous situation that exists in the European Parliament, whereby entitlement under the party lists enables someone who changes party allegiance to continue to sit as a Member?
Mr. Cook: To be honest, I do not know what response to make to that question. Some issues will have to be explored in Committee, but I would not be inclined to oppose that as a system that we would find acceptable. Yes, a list system will be used. We do not say in the White Paper whether the lists should he open or closed and we look forward to consultation and discussion on that very point. However, it would not be helpful to any of us if Members of the second Chamber were elected as

249
we are, from a fixed specific constituency, because that would open up the greatest competition between Members of the second Chamber and Members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Some of us regret the lack of progress that the Government have made in bringing devolution to the English regions, but, as my right hon. Friend said, they are now finalising their views. Will the Government think imaginatively about ways of accommodating within the arrangements that they make for regional devolution in England the representation of people from those regional bodies in a newly composed House of Lords? Does he agree that we need creativity and more joined-up thinking in carrying through constitutional reform if we are to achieve the new politics and the reinvigoration of our political institutions that so many of us want?
Mr. Cook: Like my right hon. Friend, I fully support the development of a regional dimension to United Kingdom politics. We have already done that through the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, and the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and an elected assembly in London. That work must continue, and a White Paper on regional assemblies will come before the House shortly.
On the question of representation in the House of Lords, there are two ways in which the regional dimension is relevant. The first is whether we should use elections to those regional devolved bodies as the basis on which elections for the elected Members of the House of Lords take place; that is one of the questions that we submitted for consultation. The second was the issue of indirect election from those bodies to the second Chamber. As I said earlier, that is a route for which the Wakeham Commission found no support, but the proposals are now hack out for consultation. If the devolved bodies and the existing regional bodies are interested in that involvement and route to election to the House of Lords, they have three months in which to express that view; it is down to them and my right hon. Friend to express it.
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Leader of the House will be aware that, at present, there is an independent Appointments Commission. Members from Northern Ireland welcome the statement that there will be fair representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Is the Leader of the House aware of the disappointment in Northern Ireland at the fact that Northern Ireland was not represented in the first batch of independent appointments to the House of Lords, despite the fact that a number of eminent members of the community in Northern Ireland applied to the independent commission? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take steps to ensure that when we say that there will be fair representation of the regions, measures will be introduced to ensure that that is reflected in appointments?
Mr. Cook: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments but, in fairness, the Stevenson Commission, which made those appointments, was operating on a non-statutory basis. Our proposal in the White Paper is not only that the Appointments Commissions will become
250
statutory but that the obligations that I have outlined will become statutory and therefore mandatory for the commission.
Julie Morgan: I congratulate the Government on tackling the second stage of Lords reform. I welcome the ending of the hereditary principle, the possibility of removing titles and, in particular, the requirement of a minimum of 30 per cent. women. I also welcome the consultation, as I hope that there will be movement during that period on the number of elected Members.
Why is the percentage of elected Members so low—only 20 per cent? That is lower than the highest recommendation in the Wakeham report of 35 per cent., or 195 elected members. We have already covered issues relating to what my right hon. Friend thinks about a link to regional governments in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and possibly regional governments in England. Does he see this as the end of the process, or does he see further stages ahead in which we can move to a fully democratic House of Lords?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for aspects of the statement. Totting them up, I think that she gave me a pass mark. I understand what she says about the percentage of those who are elected. From listening to the exchanges today, I believe that it is broadly agreed by almost all present that there should be some elected Members. Many hon. Members—most, I think—would recognise that a wholly elected second Chamber would have severe implications for the House of Commons. The question is where to strike the balance between "some" and "all". We proposed one balance in the White Paper and invited comments on it; I hope that the process of consultation will help us to find a consensus on judging the balance between elected, appointed and party Members.
No Government—and, for that matter, no House of Commons—can settle matters for all time, but if we are to proceed with legislation I hope that it will stand the test of some time.
Sir George Young:The House will have noted that the Leader of the House did not answer the interesting questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about whether the various imperatives on membership can be reconciled. However, I wish to make a different point. Throughout debate on the second Chamber, the Government have said that they are anxious to achieve a consensus. If it becomes clear that a consensus is more likely to be achieved at a higher level of elected representatives than currently proposed, will they obstruct the securing of that consensus?
Mr. Cook: The point of consultation is to try to reach consensus. We must respect whatever consensus emerges from it.
Mr. David Clelland: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the disadvantages of a wholly elected second Chamber, but I regret that I cannot give him a pass mark. His announcement today represents the worst of all worlds: part patronage, part appointment by a committee that will doubtless choose

251
people who resemble its members, and part election, with the danger of the clash of mandates to which he referred. Will he consider an indirectly elected Chamber, with representatives from business, trade unions, regional and local government and religious organisations? It would contain the expertise and experience to scrutinise and improve legislation.
Mr. Cook: I recognise the force of the case for indirect elections, although, from listening to hon. Members, I am not sure whether my hon. Friend struck the note of consensus for which we are searching. So far, only a minority of the United Kingdom is covered by an elected regional body. Many inside and outside the House would be reluctant to support indirect election by unelected bodies.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does not the Leader of the House believe that the current reformed Chamber is working well—indeed, according to many observers, better than ever? Can he give one example of a way in which it does not work? Today's proposals are a dog's breakfast. We should keep the House of Lords as it is, or hold full-scale elections for the second Chamber.
Mr. Cook: I refer the hon. Gentleman to Bernard Shaw's observation that a Government consisting of the hundred tallest people in Britain might work well, but that does not mean that it would be a good system. In my opening statement, I pointed out the flaws in the current House of Lords: hereditary peers are still there; no Member is elected, and its membership does not reflect the balance of the way in which the nation voted. The proposals will rectify that; those issues of principle are worth tackling.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend said that the proposals would create a "modern second Chamber". They may do many things, but they will not achieve that. Legitimacy comes only from election. Many Labour Members—and I am sure, many Labour party members, if they were properly consulted—would call for an elected second Chamber. My fear, which has been echoed by Opposition Members, is that the proposals are so inherently complex that they cannot satisfy all our expectations. I ask my right hon. Friend to put on his influential Labour party hat as a member of the national policy forum and tell us whether there will be proper consultation in the party by 31 January to ascertain its members' views of the proposals.
Mr. Cook: Of course, the Labour party, like every party, will be consulted. I hope that consultation will enable us to build cross-party consensus. I understand the force of my hon. Friend's argument, but I cannot understand how we can have a wholly elected second Chamber without breeding conflict and competition. If my hon. Friend wants us to cede power to the second Chamber, he must be honest with himself and others. I note that some Conservative Members are nodding at the idea of ceding power to the second Chamber. I do not
252
want to take through a measure that will result in the undermining of the powers and prerogatives of the House of Commons.
John Thurso: I add my welcome to the White Paper on Lords reform. I commend to the Leader of the House the inclusion of a provision to allow existing life peers to retire. I raised the matter on Second Reading of the House of Lords Act 1999 in the other place and said that, at present, the only way out was in a box.
The combination of reducing the powers on secondary legislation and the low numbers that are proposed for election leaves the second Chamber as neither fish nor fowl. Are not the proposals a small step for democracy and a giant leap for complacency?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for an escape hatch that does not involve a box. It remains to be seen how many life peers might be interested in that process of retirement, but it would be important in enabling us to meet the cap of 600 to which other hon. Members have referred.
I do not have a problem with making a proposal that involves mixed membership of the House of Lords. Indeed, as I said earlier, mixed membership is essential to ensure that the House of Lords complements, rather than competes with, this Chamber. It is a matter of judgment—and a matter for valid debate on that judgment—as to what should be the basis for, and proportion of, that mixture. That is why we are producing the White Paper and putting it out for consultation.
Mr. Calum MacDonald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can sometimes be a conflict between having a fully democratic Chamber and one that is fully representative in the sense of reflecting the wider society? Given that this Chamber is a democratic Chamber, does it not make sense to have one that is more representative, that reflects society outside, and that has more women and ethnic minorities and, hopefully, fewer lawyers?
Mr. Cook: We have not drafted any statutory provision to control the number of lawyers appointed but, obviously, I shall try to absorb the feeling of the House on that point in any proposals that we introduce after consultation.
My hon. Friend has a point. Ethnic minority communities are now better represented in the second Chamber than they are here. I hope that, in the course of achieving the progress that we want to make on the second Chamber, we shall achieve a reasonable balance between the genders more quickly than it looks as though we shall here. There are ways in which representation can be achieved other than through the ballot box. That is an important element, which is why we are proposing an element of elected members.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I congratulate the Leader of the House on the inclusion in his proposals of what might be called a Kagan clause. I also congratulate him on his desire to achieve fair representation of nations and regions in the upper House. Is he aware that, of the 267 persons elevated to the

253
peerage since 1 May 1997, three come from the east midlands, five from the north-east, seven from Wales and seven from Northern Ireland? I shall not go on, except to say that 117 appointees come from London. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in making the new, balanced range of appointments, the Appointments Commission and the political parties are asked to correct that deplorable imbalance achieved by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?
Mr. Cook: I am not immediately persuaded that Lord Kagan was the name in most people's minds when I read that passage of my speech. On the hon. Gentleman's other point, it is our objective to try to achieve fairer representation by region and by nation in the United Kingdom. That will be a statutory requirement, and it will be binding not only on the Appointments Commission but on the parties.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge:I warmly welcome the abolition of the absurd anachronism of hereditary peers. On the assumption that almost anything must be an improvement, may I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, if only on the ground that the proposed bizarre hotchpotch might at least be a stage on the road to a democratically elected second Chamber with powers limited by statute?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome, as far as it went. I agree that this represents progress. Parliamentary reform, in either Chamber, takes the form of evolution rather than revolution, and I encourage him to accept this as a step forward. If he wishes, during the consultation, to encourage us to go further, that is his prerogative.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I commend the Leader of the House for his proposal to reduce the number of bishops in the second Chamber from 26 to 16. May I suggest that his proposals would be greatly improved if that figure were to be reduced by a further 16? Surely, in the 21st century, we should have representation from all faiths and denominations or from none at all.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman and I both come from a country that went to war to get rid of bishops; I should place that interest on the table before I respond. The Wakeham Commission examined this point with considerable care and attention, and came to the conclusion that it was right that there should be representatives of faiths in the second Chamber, but that that should not rest solely with the 26 bishops. That is why it proposed a reduction in their numbers. It suggested that, for balance, a fixed number should be appointed from other faiths, and we have wrestled with that proposal for some time. However, it is impossible to reduce the many other faiths in Britain to a pro rata formula, which is why we shall invite the Appointments Commission to ensure that those faiths are properly represented and that, where appropriate, their leaders can be included on the Cross Benches.
Mr. Peter Pike: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement that hereditary peers, who sit in the House of Lords because of what their
254
ancestors did—which, in many cases, was neither worthy nor creditable—are now to go? I hope that, during the consultation period, we consider two priorities: accountability and improved legislation. I know that my right hon. Friend is keen to see improved legislation, and the second Chamber should play a role in that. It should therefore be composed of people with the expertise to look at legislation constructively and positively so that, ultimately, Parliament produces a better form of legislation.
Mr. Cook: I have no idea whether what my ancestors were doing five centuries ago was creditable or otherwise, but I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that that should not be the basis on which I or anybody else has a seat in Parliament. It should be on the basis of what we can contribute and represent.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, if we want intelligent legislation, particularly legislation that reflects the rapidly changing society and technology in the world outside, we need to give people who have an expertise that we do not necessarily have access to Parliament. Standing for election is an unusual activity, which will always be attractive only to a small minority of the population. It is right that there should be another route by which those who have something to offer but do not wish to stand for election can take part in debates and legislation.
Lady Hermon: I welcome the reform of the House of Lords. I am particularly pleased that it is not a fully elected second Chamber.
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to part of his statement:
"The Government believe that the proportion of appointed party Members should broadly match the distribution of votes between the parties at the most recent general election"
As he knows, at the last general election five Sinn Fein members were returned from Northern Ireland. They have not represented their constituents in the House because they failed to take the Oath of Allegiance. What measures do the Government intend to take to persuade Sinn Fein members to take up their position within the House of Lords?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady will be aware that the White Paper provides that the threshold for membership of the House of Lords be varied in regions where parties stand only in those regions. That means that we shall not apply the percentage figure across the UK for parties that stand only in a part of the UK. That point is of importance to Scotland and Wales, as well as to Northern Ireland.
On the position of Sinn Fein, it is more a matter of whether Sinn Fein wishes to take part in this Chamber. I doubt whether we shall appoint Sinn Fein Members to the second Chamber until such time as they may wish to take part in this Chamber.
Tony Wright: May I welcome the Government's conversion to the principle of a mixed-membership second Chamber, which ensures that we have a Chamber that is neither a rival to, nor a replica of, this House and that we have enough election to secure legitimacy, but enough appointment to secure expertise and independence?

255
In making its proposals, the Wakeham Commission was sensitive to the charge that any new House would be seen as a House of patronage, which is why its central and most radical recommendation was that all appointments should be made by an independent Appointments Commission. Why do the Government seem to have rejected that recommendation?
Mr. Cook: I agree that we must ensure that there is a channel through which people with expertise and independence of mind can take part in parliamentary debates. He is correct about what the royal commission recommended: that the independent Appointments Commission appoint not only Cross Benchers but party representatives. We have not accepted that argument for the simple and straightforward reason that we cannot conceive of a major political party submitting to a situation in which its representatives were chosen by people who were not members of that party, and I doubt whether the official Opposition would submit to it either.
I notice that Lord Wakeham himself seems to be resiling from that recommendation. In this week's The House Magazine, he is quoted as saying:
"I have always envisaged that the overwhelming bulk of the political nominees would come by nomination of their party leaders."
That is precisely what is before the House in this White Paper.
Mr. Tom Levitt: I welcome the broad thrust of today's proposals, particularly those on measures to ensure the continued primacy of this Chamber. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the new second Chamber is to be a working Chamber, and that there should be at least a minimum level of attendance and participation, particularly for appointed Members, on which continued membership of the Chamber depends?
Mr. Cook:My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We shall seek to construct a second Chamber that will be a functioning second Chamber capable of providing added value to our debates on legislation and scrutiny of the Executive. It is important that those who take their place there maintain a reasonable attendance record. People will be chosen not only for what they have to offer but for their willingness to ensure that they do contribute to those debates.

WTO Ministerial Conference
4.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the World Trade Organisation and the fourth ministerial conference that starts in Doha later this week.
Even before 11 September, a new world trade round was a high priority. Further expansion of world trade—free and fair world trade—offers the best opportunity to people in developing countries to escape from poverty. With the economies of Japan, the USA and Europe faltering, a new world trade round offered real benefits to the west as well. However, the atrocity of 11 September has made a new trade round even more important, both politically and economically.
In the past eight weeks, we have helped to create an extraordinary international consensus to fight terrorism and strengthen world security. We must, however, also fight terror with trade. As the US trade representative Bob Zoellick has said, we need a global alliance for openness and fairness that
"understands that the staying power of the new coalition depends on economic growth and hope".
By launching a new world trade round in Doha next week, we will show that the nations of the world are determined to strengthen their security by sharing prosperity. We will also inject fresh confidence into a world economy that was further hit by the atrocity on 11 September.
A new round will bring benefits at home and abroad. As the world's fifth largest trader, for the United Kingdom the potential benefits of further trade liberalisation are considerable. On a global level, if we could just halve trade protection in both developing and the developed countries, we would boost world income by about $400 billion a year. That would mean an increase in the wealth of developing countries of about $150 billion a year, which is about three times what they receive each year in development aid. The average income of every household in Britain would be boosted by almost £500 a year.
I shall be leading the United Kingdom delegation in Doha and will be joined by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister for the Environment and by my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment. I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom delegation will once again include a representative each from business, the unions and other non-governmental organisations.
I should like briefly to outline our objectives at Doha. If this trade round is to be a success, we must put social justice and poverty reduction at its heart. That means the reduction and, where possible, the elimination of trade barriers, particularly those in developed countries that hamper exports from the developing world. It means agreeing rules that properly reflect WTO members' different levels of development and a sustained effort by the richer countries of the world to build the capacity of the developing countries to trade and to participate effectively in the WTO.
I am delighted that, earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a further increase in the United Kingdom's

257
investment in capacity building in developing countries. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister wrote to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank urging them to make a further joint commitment to help the least developed countries build their capacity to trade and to participate in the WTO.
The 49 poorest countries of the world account for almost 11 per cent. of the world's population, but less than 0.5 per cent. of the world's exports, and that tiny percentage has been decreasing. Those countries, which most need trade to raise them out of poverty, face significant trade barriers. That is why we in the European Union, through the everything but arms agreement, are giving the poorest countries in the world duty-free and quota-free access to our European markets for all their goods except arms. At Doha, my colleagues and I will be urging other WTO members to commit themselves to the same everything but arms objective—duty-free and quota-free access throughout the developed world for the least developed countries.
We must also ensure that people in the developing world get access to the medicines that they need. I know that that is a matter of concern to the whole House. Britain has already committed $200 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and since 1997 we have committed £1 billion to primary health care services in poor countries.
Developing countries believe, however, that the WTO's rules on intellectual property rights inhibit their access to essential medicines, particularly to deal with the devastating HIV/AIDS pandemic in southern Africa. It is important to ensure that intellectual property rights continue to provide an incentive for companies to keep on developing medicines, but I believe that by clarifying and properly using the flexibility provided within existing rules we can ensure that all Governments are able to act to protect the public during health crises.
Discussions on the form and content of the new round have entered their final stages. All parties have been spurred on to greater efforts to resolve their differences and reach agreement on the basis for launching a new round, but there are still some very tough issues that we shall have to tackle in the week that lies ahead. Let me refer briefly to the other elements in the new round that we view as a priority.
First, there is agriculture. We must make a real commitment to liberalisation, and linked to that is further major reform of the European common agricultural policy. Protectionism in all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, including countries of the Cairns group that lead the cry against European subsidies, is estimated to cost developing countries some $20 billion a year.
Secondly, there is the environment. We strongly support European Union efforts to bring environmental issues into the negotiation. We want trade liberalisation to deliver environmental benefits, and we want to ensure that WTO rules do not undermine legitimate environmental policy; but we also want to ensure that environmental standards should not be used as a form of back-door protectionism. Multilateral rules on trade and on the environment can work in a mutually supportive way, but we need greater clarity about the interaction between them.
258
Thirdly, we want to include negotiations on foreign direct investment and competition with a view to a simple, basic framework of rules based on transparency and non-discrimination. Those rules could give business a stable and predictable climate, and help developing countries to attract the foreign direct investment that they need.
Fourthly, there are services. We are the world's second largest exporter of services, so of course we want to open up markets in more service sectors; but let me make it clear that we have no intention of making any commitments that could call into question our ability to maintain public services provided through the national health service or the state education system.
Finally, there are labour standards. As we expand world trade, we must also promote higher labour standards around the world. The International Labour Organisation is the right place to set those labour standards, but we shall be seeking a broader dialogue between the ILO and other international organisations, including the WTO.
Labour Members believe that social justice and a successful economy go together. That is what we are building here in Britain, and that is what we must achieve internationally: opening markets and tackling world poverty. The WTO meeting this week is a huge opportunity for 142 nations to move forward together at a time of great uncertainty. The United Kingdom is in a unique position to contribute, as an active player at the heart of the European Union. a strong ally of the United States, and a vigorous supporter of the Commonwealth. In Doha, we will use that position to help secure an agenda for free and fair trade—to launch a trade round that benefits Britain, but above all benefits the poorest people of our world.
Mr. John Whittingdale: I thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of her statement. I also welcome the fact that she is making a statement at all. It is unusual to do so in advance of a meeting, but it is also helpful in that it provides us with a yardstick by which to measure the Government's success in achieving their objectives. I would also be grateful if she confirmed that it is her intention to make a further statement to the House once the conference is over.
I wish to join the Secretary of State in emphasising the importance of achieving a new world trade round. The expansion of global free trade will bring huge benefits, not only to us in this country but to the developing world, as she rightly said. There were some who suggested that the meeting in Doha might have to be postponed as a result of the terrorist attacks in America and the action that has followed them. I unreservedly welcome the decision not to postpone. The choice of the World Trade Centre as one of the targets for attack was deliberate and one of the ways in which we can best demonstrate our resolve is by going ahead with the conference.
The Secretary of State is right to say that the success of the trade round will be measured by the extent to which barriers to trade are reduced. But does she accept that to do so will involve some pain and sacrifice on the part of all concerned? Does she recognise that the last set of talks in Seattle was a disappointment, and that by insisting on a broad agenda little of substance was achieved at all?

259
Does she agree that, contrary to the views of some well meaning—and indeed some less well meaning—organisations, the biggest losers from that failure were the countries of the developing world? Does she accept that under the existing rules it may prove almost impossible to achieve consensus among all members, and that the WTO itself may now therefore be in need of serious reform?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that while the European Union has achieved much in terms of reducing barriers to trade between member states, the EU still maintains some 15,000 tariffs against countries outside the European club? Does she accept that the EU common tariff wall not only costs European consumers a huge amount but is depriving developing countries of vital opportunities to export to our markets? At the same time, will she accept that if we are to open up our markets to more competition, it is equally important that the Government act to improve the competitiveness of British industry, rather than reducing it by imposing ever more tax and regulation?
The Secretary of State rightly identified the need for liberalisation in agriculture as a key priority. But will she accept that despite the commitments made at successive European summits, very little has been achieved? Can she say what progress has been made in persuading some of the more recalcitrant EU member states to make the reforms that are necessary?
On services, does the Secretary of State recognise that a balance needs to be struck between trade liberalisation and proper consumer protection? Does she also accept that an equal balance is necessary with the concerns of environmental protection, but that it is vital that neither issue should become an excuse to prevent agreement?
On intellectual property, will the Secretary of State recognise that intellectual property rights are not a form of protectionism but necessary to encourage and reward research and development? Does she acknowledge that weakening those rights risks reducing pharmaceutical research and development and slowing medical innovation? Can she say what discussions she has had with our European partners on that matter; and can she confirm that it is the Government's view that the main responsibility for making cheaper medicine available to the third world should rest with Governments, not the pharmaceutical industry?
Finally, can the Secretary of State say what will be the effect of China's joining the WTO? Does she agree that the opening up of China's markets represents a tremendous opportunity, but at the same time is bound to have tremendous implications for enterprises in that country?
Doha represents an immense opportunity to boost economic prosperity throughout the world. I therefore end by wishing the Secretary of State and her colleagues every success. We look forward to her report back to the House.
Ms Hewitt: I thank the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) for the courteous welcome that he has given my statement. I thank him too for the good wishes that he has expressed, to me and to the delegation. I considered that it would helpful to inform the House of the Government's negotiating position at
260
Doha, and in the same way I can confirm that I shall report back on the outcome of the talks after the conference has taken place.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about decision making in the World Trade Organisation. There is no doubt that one of the hard lessons learned at Seattle was that all WTO members—and the organisation is very large—must be able to participate fully in the decision-making process. We think that that can best be achieved by building consensus and by improving communication, both inside the organisation itself and with external bodies.
The work undertaken in the WTO general council in Geneva has already gone a long way to achieving that greater openness. All WTO members are conscious that the negotiating process at Doha needs to be more transparent and inclusive for all member Governments than was the case at Seattle. However, we shall continue to seek ways to formalise those improvements in the WTO' s ways of working, in parallel with establishing a new trade round.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of tariffs in the European Union, which are immensely damaging to developing countries seeking to export their way out of poverty. As I made clear in my statement—and as Commissioner Lamy has made clear on behalf of the EU—we are and must be prepared to negotiate reductions in many of those tariffs, or their elimination, as part of a new round. Through unilateral action, we have already done the same in relation to the everything but arms initiative, to which I referred earlier.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned those businesses in Britain and elsewhere in the EU that fear competition from lower-wage countries in the developing world. It is essential that we support those companies, and above all their workers. By helping them to move to higher value-added production, we can remain competitive with the rest of the world.
In the textile sector, for instance, the work force and some businesses are especially concerned about the impact of the phasing out of the multi-fibre agreement. We are already working with business and the trade unions to improve the productivity and competitiveness of the sector, in particular by helping businesses move into the field of technical textiles.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as I did, agricultural subsidies in the EU. I can confirm that we have been pressing our European colleagues on that matter for some years. Reform of the common agricultural policy is absolutely essential, not only because there is a need to agree a new world trade round, but also because we must move forward to enlargement of the EU. I agree with him about the need to strike a proper balance with regard to services and the environment.

In addition, I wish to underline what I said about the need to ensure that there is intellectual property protection for companies, given that pharmaceutical companies invest millions in the development of each new drug that they bring to market. There is no serious proposal on the table that the TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—agreement should be renegotiated within the WTO.
We must act to improve access to medicines in the developing countries, and I described the other actions that we can take outside the WTO to make that possible.

261
However, the pharmaceutical companies to which I have spoken recently made it clear that they too are willing to play their part in ensuring that cheaper medicines—even those under patent protection—are available in developing countries.
Finally, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the enormous importance of China's accession to the World Trade Organisation, which we have warmly welcomed. That has enormous implications for world trade, as that country has the second largest economy in the world. We shall continue to work closely with the Government in China to ensure that the potential of its accession is fully recognised.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the Secretary of State for her seriousness of purpose, and also express my appreciation of the good sense—and, if I may say so, good parliamentary manners—of her coming to the House pre-conference rather than post-conference. Is she aware that both today and tomorrow a heavyweight delegation from the Philippines are guests of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that during discussions this morning its members stressed the problems of central Mindanao, where there is a serious dissident terrorist problem for both the Muslim and the indigenous community? They argued that if there could be trade in the tropical fruits of that area, and entry into the European market for that trade, many of the terrorist problems would probably be overcome.
We are the biggest investors in the Philippines, so at Doha, will my right hon. Friend make a point of asking her officials to contact the Filipinos? I know that the Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), has close connections with the railways, so he will be glad to hear that it was the British, from Plymouth and Scotland, who built the railways in the Philippines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be astonished to hear that. when she comes back, there will be a question on the Order Paper asking what she has done by way of contacting the Filipinos about trade in fruits and related matters.
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his question; perhaps I can give him notice of my answer. I was not aware that there was a delegation from the Philippines here at the moment, but I will certainly ensure that my officials, and if possible one of the Ministers, speak directly to the delegation while we are in Doha. Because of my visit to the Philippines some time ago, I am well aware of both the terrorist problem and the trade problem to which my hon. Friend refers, and I hope that we will be able to make an advance in that respect through securing a new round of negotiations at Doha.
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add my welcome for the Secretary of State's timely statement, and take the opportunity to reiterate my belief that an open and liberal trading system, strengthened by this round, is exactly the way to counter the present crisis of confidence in the international economy, and particularly to help developing countries to progress through trade, which, as she rightly says, is the primary objective of the new round? I also ask her to go a little further and condemn some of the weasel words of her fellow Trade Ministers and Commission officials in Europe, who are still
262
resisting the idea that radical trade liberalisation in agriculture and other protected sectors, such as textiles, has to happen, and that those product areas are crucial for all developing countries, not just the least developed. Will she also make it clearer than she did in her statement that although it is right to strive for enhanced environmental and labour standards, there is no economic or moral justification for allowing such barriers to be used as an obstruction to trade with countries that are too poor to afford those standards?
Finally, as the Secretary of State for International Development has joined her on the Front Bench, may I ask the right hon. Lady to emulate her colleague's forthright and occasionally courageous stance against some of the myths of the anti-globalisation movement, which are influential and do great damage? In particular, will she dismiss the fashionable myth that the World Trade Organisation exists to undermine public health and education, when it does nothing of the kind?
Ms Hewitt: I have already said—I made the point in a speech yesterday—that well meaning though many, if not quite all, of them are, those who oppose world trade and the World Trade Organisation are doing a massive disservice to the people whom they believe they are helping—the people of the poorest countries in the world. I offer one illustration of that fact. Thirty years ago South Korea was a far poorer country than Nigeria. Today the people of South Korea are 30 times richer than the people of Nigeria. One reason is the very different approach to world trade pursued not only by South Korea but by countries in other parts of south-east Asia.
I have also made it clear, publicly and privately, as have my right hon. Friends, that we in Europe must stop dragging our feet on agricultural reform. We know from our experience of the foot and mouth crisis that reform of our farming system and our farming subsidies is increasingly urgent. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, it is also essential, in the interests of enlargement of the European Union as well as the interests of people in developing countries, that we reduce those agricultural subsidies.
We are already committed, as a result of the Uruguay round, to phasing out the multi-fibre agreement on textiles. As far as investment and competition are concerned, we are seeking to strengthen the rules that will enable much greater foreign direct investment—not speculative flows—in developing countries that urgently need that capital to improve their infrastructure.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for the position that we are taking at Doha.
Mr. Alan Simpson: What consideration has the United Kingdom given to its negotiating position in relation to these talks? About three key elements and objections have been raised from the south. First, it is inappropriate to enter a further round of World Trade Organisation negotiations when the north has not honoured the promises made to the south in the Uruguay round.
Secondly, what consideration has the Secretary of State given to the representations set out in the document produced and published yesterday by 20 UK NGOs, in conjunction with their sister organisations in the

263
developing world, as part of the Trade Justice Movement? The document points to the fact that liberalisation to date has amounted to little more than deregulation in the private interest rather than fair regulation in the public interest.
Finally, will the UK respond to the cries of the developing world to stop the destruction of its domestic agricultural systems by the dumping of subsidised food produce from the industrial world?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises three important points. Although I understand the concerns of developing countries that we need to settle the implementation of the agreements entered into in the Uruguay round before embarking on a new one, I think that those concerns have, to a significant extent, been allayed by the progress that we have made, particularly in the past few weeks, on the outstanding implementation questions. About 100 of those issues have been considered in great detail in recent weeks in the World Trade Organisation and, in particular, between Commissioner Lamy and Ambassador Zoellick. At the recent meeting in Singapore, we made considerable progress on a first basket of implementation agreements addressing some of the most urgent concerns, and I believe that we can make substantial progress at Doha and in the context of a new round.
My hon. Friend referred to the concerns of the British NGOs, some of whom I met yesterday. We will, of course, have a representative of the development movement NGOs in the delegation, as well as representatives from the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. However, let me underline the point that I made in response to an earlier question. Non-governmental and development organisations sometimes misrepresent what is going on and what we are seeking to achieve in a new round. It is important to draw attention to initiatives such as the everything but arms agreement which has been and will be of enormous benefit to the least developed countries of the world, and which we are seeking to extend substantially through the new negotiations.
Thirdly, I agree with my hon. Friend about the damage that is done to domestic agriculture sectors in developing countries by the dumping of subsidised agricultural produce produced in the developed world. That is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard in the talks for agriculture reform.
Tony Baldry: Will the Secretary of State comment on reports that, at a meeting of the least-developed countries group last week in Geneva, concern was expressed that none of those countries' input was getting through to the draft Doha declaration? At the same time, Stuart Harbison was saying that the draft declaration was now final. Given that, within the politics of the possible, progress on trade-related intellectual property will be slow, can the Secretary of State confirm that the $200 million that the Government are giving to the global health fund is not a one-off payment, and that there will be further contributions in the future? It would be good news if the Secretary of State for International Development could also confirm that.
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has enormous expertise and commitment on these matters. We—
264
with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development—are trying to ensure that the global health fund works effectively in starting to address the needs of people in the developing countries for access to medicine. If it does we shall of course seek to increase the size of the fund.
The ability of the least-developed countries to contribute directly and to have their voice heard in the WTO negotiations is important. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend has been increasing so substantially UK investment in capacity building in those countries, so that they can have a more effective voice in the WTO. I assure the hon. Gentleman that both my right hon. Friend and I will continue to ensure that the voice of those countries is heard during the negotiations in the week ahead.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The third world needs access to resources, and measures to stop the further undermining of their economies. The Secretary of State will be aware that one proposal is that there should be an international tax on currency speculation, including chasing money in tax havens—something we now say that we can do because of bin Laden. The tax is known as the Tobin tax, although Tobin himself may have gone off the idea a bit. Such a tax would dampen down speculation and raise massive resources. Should it not be discussed at the WTO—at least in an exploratory form—since some Governments have begun to take it on board, and especially since Tobin initially thought that the WTO could be one of the avenues through which the tax could operate?
Ms Hewitt: As my hon. Friend rightly says, James Tobin seems to be rather sceptical about his idea, so we may have to rename the Tobin tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Barnes tax."] Indeed, the Barnes tax. Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend: as the Chancellor recently made clear, the proposal for a Tobin tax, or for some system that would raise revenue internationally and dedicate it to world development, is already being discussed, within ECOFIN at European level, and also internationally, in the United Nations and the OECD.
Adam Price: The Secretary of State stresses the need to bring benefits to the poorest countries, with which I am sure we all agree. However, in that case, I fail to understand why she does not even consider as serious the proposals that many developing countries should have a public health exemption from international patent rules, thus enabling those poor countries to import cheap drugs to protect their citizens—much as the United States has been able to do recently with the anti-anthrax drug, Cipro. It will be interesting to learn what discussions she holds with the Secretary of State for International Development on that vital issue. Will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry promise the House that she will bring pressure to bear on her American colleagues to ensure that the same trading concessions are given to Nigeria, India and other textile-producing countries as to Pakistan; or will the rules of trade continue to be based not on justice and equity but on the economic self-interest of the west?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points. We believe that the flexibility that already exists

265
in TRIPS within the WTO rules enables the Governments of developing countries to obtain the medicines that they need to care for their people during a public health emergency. One of our objectives at Doha is to ensure that that is sufficiently well understood and clarified to enable us to reach agreement.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that if we simply set aside intellectual property rights we will destroy the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest massively in the research needed to develop new drugs to deal not only with diseases in the developed world but with the diseases of poverty.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises the considerable efforts and risks that the Government and people of Pakistan are taking in relation to the terrorism of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. He will also recognise the real efforts that the authorities in Pakistan are making to deal with the menace of drugs. It is in recognition of both facts that the European Commission has recently made a proposal, which we support, for bilateral improvements in the textiles arrangements with Pakistan. I certainly hope that the United States of America will take a similar position.
I fully understand the concerns within our own industry on that subject, and I recently met the employers and KFAT, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades, to discuss the subject. It is appropriate that we recognise the efforts that Pakistan is making and take further steps, along with those that we shall be taking in the WTO, to assist Pakistan to export in a sector that is of enormous importance to it.
Roger Casale:I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and welcome the emphasis that I know she will place, on behalf of the British Government at Doha, on using any forthcoming trade round to eliminate poverty around the world, and allowing the world's poorest economies to develop their potential through trade at the same time as we move to unshackle the world's poorest societies from the unmeetable and unbearable burden of debt. Does she share my concern that, despite the popular impression that the process of globalisation is accelerating, we are experiencing not only a global slowdown in economic growth around the world but, critically, an even greater slowdown in the growth of trade as a share of world output? Is it not the case that trade liberalisation must be an overriding imperative for the world community, not least because global recession would have catastrophic consequences for the world's poor?
Ms Hewitt: I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. We face a real slowdown in economic growth, in trade and in foreign investment, especially in the developing countries. The real disaster would be if, in response to the economic slowdown, the countries of the developed world were to retreat into isolation and protectionism. Our best response to the economic slowdown as well as the terrorist attacks is to advance the cause of free and fair world trade, in the interests of the developing countries above all but also of the west.
Mr. Anew Lansley: The Secretary of State will be aware that the linkages between issues are some of the most important aspects of the trade round. May I invite her to add a little more on the question
266
of the linkage between the European Union proposals for the reduction or elimination of tariff barriers and the desirability of increasing the effectiveness of competition authorities in other countries? She said that they should be non-discriminatory and transparent, but will she also make it clear that they should be independent and effective? If they are not, there is a risk that anti-dumping measures will be adopted as a way of reintroducing some of the protection that is otherwise forgone.
Ms Hewitt: Anti-dumping is one of the largest issues in the implementation basket that we have to consider, and the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the need for effective competition authorities is absolutely right. If we can achieve more effective regimes for competition and investment across the world, we shall create a much better climate for foreign direct investment around the world. However, we must also recognise that, for developing countries with very little governmental capacity, those are difficult new issues that we are asking them to take on. I believe that we shall make progress on that at Doha, but we shall then need to reassure developing countries that we are not asking them to do too much, too quickly—again, another reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been boosting our investment in capacity building.
Mr. John Battle: Every day, poor countries lose some £1.4 billion because of unfair trade rules, while a quarter of the world's wealth is owned by 200 transnational corporations, so more just trade rules are crucial. Although I generally welcome my right hon. Friend's positive approach to the Doha conference, may I tell her not to put all her faith in improving and getting fairer international trade rules and urge her also to encourage and support local and regional trading, which is vital to poorer countries' economies?
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes. Local and regional trading agreements are not an alternative to the multilateral trading agreements that we can achieve through the World Trade Organisation, but as our own experience in Europe demonstrates, they are none the less extremely important, especially to developing countries, for which they undoubtedly represent the best route out of poverty.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State tell us what specific proposals the European Union has to put on the table at the conference in relation to liberalisation in trade in food, which is fundamental to resolving world poverty issues? Will she tell the House how many of her 14 colleagues from other EU countries she thinks support her commendable philosophy of world trade liberalisation?
Ms Hewitt: Of course, the EU and the European Commissioner negotiate in the WTO on behalf of all 15 members of the EU. Commissioner Lamy, to whom I pay tribute for his work so far, is clear about the negotiating remit that the EU has given him and about the need to secure agreement on moving forward on agricultural liberalisation. There are non-trade issues, including animal welfare, about which the European public have expressed real concern, but, as with

267
environmental issues, the developing countries can view them as thinly disguised protectionism, and we need to reassure them about that. Of course, the specific proposals will be a matter for the negotiations themselves. Our objective at Doha is, in effect, to agree the terms of reference for that new round.
Judy Mallaber: My right hon. Friend has referred to the concerns expressed in the clothing and textiles sector. Will she expand on what issues relating to the sector she thinks may be raised during the talks—and what is the Government's position on them?
Ms Hewitt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done with the textiles industry, which is enormously important in her constituency and, indeed, in mine. The textiles issue is immensely important to developing countries, which is why they seek further liberalisation and, in particular, a reduction of tariff barriers in the western countries, and we will consider that issue very carefully. As I said in my recent discussions with industry and union leaders, we will also consider ways in which we can work even more effectively to ensure—as quotas are phased out, which we have already undertaken to do, and as tariffs are reduced—not only that the industry can move even more effectively into more advanced and higher-value-added products but that any tariff reductions that we make are matched by tariff reductions in developing countries, enabling our industry to gain access for its products to new markets in other parts of the world.
Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased that the Secretary of State referred to intellectual property, but disappointed that it is not one of the United Kingdom's priorities for Doha. Does she recognise that the concentration of intellectual property rights in the wealthiest countries could be harmful? Although the intellects that lie behind the property come from all over the world, the rights invariably end up in the home countries of the largest companies. Is she worried that the structural inability to develop strong portfolios of intellectual property in some developing countries may work against their need to reduce poverty?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Many developing countries are concerned about the impact of intellectual property rights on traditional knowledge, especially in medicines and health. We are considering that, as is the World Trade Organisation. I hope that we will make progress on that as a result of the Doha negotiations.
David Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the WTO far too often reinforces the existing competitive advantage of developed nations? Do not some of the proposals for further trade liberalisation at Doha breach basic rules on cultural diversity, environmental sustainability and respect for human rights? If so, what will she do about that in the delegation?
Ms Hewitt: I regret to say that I do not agree with the assumption underlying my hon. Friend's question,
268
although I am aware of his concerns. Doha will allow us to identify much more effectively how we ensure that further liberalisation of world trade works to the advantage of the environment, development and, therefore, human rights. That is our goal. The development that has occurred in many parts of the world as a result of world trade liberalisation in the past 50 years is a sign that if we continue to build an effective World Trade Organisation and strengthen the rules for free and fair trade we can achieve the objective of spreading sustainable prosperity across the world.
Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her commitment to openness and fairness in the next round of trade negotiations this week. I accept, as I am sure she does, that there is no level playing field in the trade between the south and north. She will appreciate the concerns of developing countries about the benefits of the WTO negotiations. Will she support their demand for an independent impact assessment of the WTO policies before we press the south for further liberalisation of its trade?
Ms Hewitt: It is important to assess the impact of trade liberalisation measures, and work is being done on that. However, for some measures—for example, in relation to textiles—it will not be possible to get full evidence on the impact of liberalisation until we have concluded the phasing out of the multi-fibre agreement in 2005. I am sure that more can be done, especially within international agreements, to build up an assessment of the impact. Let me stress, however, that there is already good evidence of the beneficial impact of fair trade on developing countries, which should enable us with confidence to agree the beginning of a new round of negotiations at the ministerial conference this week.

BILL PRESENTED
  EMPLOYMENT BILL
  Ms Secretary Hewitt, supported by The Prime Minister,. Secretary Prescott,. Chancellor of the Exchequer,. Secretary Darling, s. Secretary Liddell, Secretary Estelle Morris, Alan Johnson and Malcolm Wicks, presented a Bill to make provision for statutory rights to paternity and adoption leave and pay; to amend the law relating to statutory maternity leave and pay; to amend the Employment Tribunals Act 1996; to make provision for the use of statutory procedures in relation to employment disputes; to amend the law relating to particulars of employment; to make provision about compromise agreements; to make provision for questionnaires in relation to equal pay; to make provision in connection with trade union learning representatives; to amend section 110 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; to make provision about fixed-term work; to amend the law relating to maternity allowance; to make provision for work-focused interviews for partners of benefit claimants; to make provision about the use of information for, or relating to, employment and training; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 44].

Hospital Inspectorate
5.19 pm
Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent inspectorate of hospitals to provide independent inspection of waiting lists, waiting times, hospital efficiency and clinical cleanliness.
The Bill is about standards in hospitals. Some 75,000 people had their operations cancelled last year, and nearly 300,000 people are waiting simply to get on an out-patient waiting list. The Bill will set up an independent body, so that when the Government talk about improvements in the NHS, patients will be able to see whether there is evidence of such improvements.
The independent hospital inspectorate that the Bill will establish will be very different from the Commission for Health Improvement. The commission says that it has influence, but there is no point in having influence if it does not lead to improvement. Clearly, an independent inspectorate is needed to respond to the recommendations of the Bristol inquiry and similar investigations, as well as to patients' concerns, to identify weaknesses in the NHS and impartially to ensure accountability.
Those objectives may be within the commission's remit, but the reality is rather more modest, as observed by a recent report in the Health Service Journal. It noted that few establishments in the NHS have experienced intervention. In the commission's first year, only four pilot reviews of acute trusts and two specialist investigations have been carried out, and that is a pathetic rate of inquiry. I very much doubt that Ofsted would have commanded any credibility if in its first year of operation it had inspected only four secondary schools and two primary schools.
Patients need to be sure that hospitals are adequately inspected now, not in four years. The Bill seeks to ensure that the tasks that the Commission for Health Improvement should be doing will be done. The same Health Service Journal report observes that a further problem with the commission is that its reports raise as many questions as they answer and prompt a further inquiry. That suggests that the traffic light system of classifying trusts may run into trouble.
There is little confidence in existing mechanisms to monitor standards in the NHS. The commission is clearly under pressure to claim success stories for the Government's NHS plan, which seriously calls into question its freedom. That is why the Bill calls for an independent NHS hospital inspectorate. Priority must be given to patients, not Government spin doctors trying to claim improvements when patently they are not taking place.
Even the Audit Commission finds that its informative reports have little influence on results. Let us consider its recent report on accident and emergency admissions. It found that, nationally, nearly one third more people are now waiting longer for such admissions. Last June, at the Horton general hospital in Banbury in my constituency, 27 people had to wait more than 12 hours in accident and emergency before they were seen. On average then, almost every day one person had to wait more than 12 hours, whereas a year earlier none had to do so. The situation in our hospitals is getting worse, not better. The Audit Commission finds itself repeating the
270
recommendations that it made five years ago. The Commission for Health Improvement is incapable of bringing about change, and the Audit Commission finds it hard to do so.
We have introduced adequate inspection systems in other public services, such as Ofsted, which has done an enormous amount to make schools' performance more transparent, to improve accountability and to drive up standards. The Bill will establish an inspectorate that would seek honestly to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of NHS hospitals and trusts without scapegoating staff.
That brings me back to the Government's policy of traffic light classification of NHS trusts as green, yellow or red, depending on their performance. That has introduced a crazy situation whereby trusts in areas that are having difficulties have their budgets cut, but those in areas where things are going well have their budgets enhanced. Perhaps the Government should pause and reflect that almost all the trusts that were recently found to merit no stars for performance on indicators such as accident and emergency admissions and trolley waits were in the south-east. I find it difficult to believe that weaknesses in NHS management are such a geographical phenomenon.
Perhaps the real reason why hospitals and trusts such as the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust appear to perform so badly is as a consequence of staff shortages, especially shortages of nursing staff which are more acute and serious in the south-east. In Oxfordshire—a county where "long in-patient" performance is already 60 per cent. away from target—the Government's current policy will cause the position to worsen, as they take money away from the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust.
Furthermore, simply threatening to sack NHS managers and scapegoating NHS staff is no solution. It certainly does not help my constituents. I doubt that I am alone in receiving almost daily representations from constituents who are frustrated either by the length of time it has taken them to get treatment, or by the number of times that their operation has been cancelled.
From a large number of examples, let me offer a simple one. Last Saturday,. Graham came to see me. All he wants is an out-patient appointment at the audiology clinic at the Radcliffe infirmary where his hearing can be tested to determine which hearing aid might be the most suitable for him. He was referred to the hospital by his GP in January and was told that there would be a three-month wait for an out-patient appointment. When at the end of the three months he inquired when he would be seen, he was told that it would take a further 12 months. About 10 days ago—a week before he came to see me—he was told that he would have to wait a further 14 months. That is a total wait of almost 20 months for a straightforward out-patient appointment.
The outcome of the Government's current policies is that the problems in a county such as Oxfordshire, where "long out-patient" performance is a shocking 75 per cent. away from target, will simply get worse. Oxfordshire health authority is now having to identify cuts of 7 million before it is abolished on 1 April next year. As a consequence, trolley waits will continue at a high and unacceptable level, as will cancellations of operations.
There is a critical shortage of staff in the NHS in Oxfordshire: a recent count revealed that 377 of the 1,250 nursing posts were vacant. As my hon. Friends the

271
Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—all sponsors of my Bill—can testify, the people of Oxfordshire are becoming extremely frustrated and disillusioned by the continuing deterioration in the delivery of NHS services in their county. I suspect that trends in Oxfordshire are repeated in many other parts of the country, especially in the south-east.
What the NHS needs is more nurses, more staff and more money. The Government's policies will simply exacerbate the difficulties of NHS trusts that are in trouble. It is not possible further to reduce spending on health services while expecting health authorities such as Oxfordshire's to implement what in NHS jargon are called PIP and PIP2—patient improvement plans. How on earth is implementing such plans possible when one is cutting the budgets of local hospitals'? Even if the John Radcliffe hospital and Horton hospital could recruit a full complement of nurses, they cannot now afford to do so because they could not afford to pay them. Their ability to do so will be eroded even further by Government-imposed additional cuts to their budgets.
The Department of Health has instructed Oxfordshire health authority to implement cuts of £7 million in the financial year 2000–01. Those cuts are in addition to the cuts that the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust is expected to make in respect of the John Radcliffe hospital and Horton hospital, whose budgets have to be reduced by a further £4.5 million. Oxfordshire health authority's resource outlook for the coming year diplomatically observes that those cumulative cuts will entail "a reduction in aspirations".
There will be a substantial reduction in NHS services to my constituents and those of every Oxfordshire Member of Parliament, further exacerbated by the fact that Oxfordshire county council is simultaneously having to make substantial savings in its social services budget—savings of so draconian a nature that only those in the most urgent need are now likely to receive social services support. I do not expect the problem of bed blocking to be resolved this winter.
My Bill will ensure that when failings are found, there will be the necessary encouragement to ensure appropriate funding. That does not happen under the Commission for Health Improvement, nor under the Audit Commission. My Bill will introduce an independent NHS hospital inspectorate that will help to direct investment into hospitals that need assistance. That will be better for nurses, managers and patients.
My Bill will also establish an inspectorate that can watch where NHS funding goes at a time when the Government are somewhat chaotically restructuring the NHS. The Government's rhetoric in their NHS plan is that NHS restructuring
"will develop partnership and co-operation"
but I suspect that the reality will be—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
5.29 pm
Mr. Evan Harris: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said about the state of the NHS in
272
Oxfordshire, but I do not believe that the Bill would add to any inspection regimes that might exist to measure sensible outcomes. Indeed, it appears to focus on measures that are not sensible. I put it to the House that it is no good measuring silly things better. Mechanisms already exist for measuring the sensible things—health outcomes—that need to be measured.
It must be understood that the Government strategy for escaping responsibility for poor performance in the national health service is to shift the blame. They are doing that, first, through continuous structural change, to appear to be busy while making matters worse. Secondly, they insist on creating changes in working patterns, labelled "modernisation", which does not appear to have any influence on improved patient care, then criticise people who oppose that change because it is change for change's sake. The third prong of their strategy is to name and shame, which they do through league tables.
The creation of yet another inspectorate on top of those that already exist gives more weight to the idea that the problem of investment, staffing and morale is not the Government's failure, but a failure of some hospitals involving poor management or poor clinical care, and plays into the Government's hands. Current problems, including waiting lists, waiting times and clinical cleanliness, which appear in the motion moved by the hon. Gentleman, are not sensible measures of outcomes. Many of the outcome targets that the Government measured for their league tables were wholly dependent on trusts' ability to staff their hospitals, which involves the availability of clinical staff, as the hon. Gentleman said, the level of Government resources and, of course, trusts' ability to fiddle the figures.
Creating another inspectorate to measure how much the figures are fiddled does not do anything to improve patient care. Indeed, yet another inspectorate will simply play the Government's game of scapegoating. Waiting lists are merely a measure of activity; the more operations that are available on the health service, the greater the number of people waiting. The critical factor is average waiting time, not how many people are waiting. The continuing focus on waiting list numbers has distorted clinical priorities and has often led to people waiting longer. Rigid Government waiting-time targets create distortions themselves, as people are brought in to meet the 18-month, 15-month and 12-month—apparently soon to be six-month—limit at the expense of critically ill people who should be treated within 18 days or 18 hours. That is happening at the John Radcliffe and many other hospitals. Focusing on such measures through the proposed inspectorate or other inspectorates does not help.
Another flaw in the proposal is the suggestion that an inspectorate can sensibly measure hospital efficiency without taking effectiveness into account. Hospitals can be hugely efficient when they are 100 per cent. full, but they are not effective if they cannot admit anyone. If, by clinical cleanliness the hon. Gentleman means cross-infection rates, those should already be being measured by good clinical practice—clinical audit and clinical governance. If the Government focused on sensible outcome measures, I would be more prepared to welcome the measures that they have introduced through, for example, the Commission for Health Improvement, the continuing work of the Audit Commission, clinical governance and clinical audit, which ensure that those measures are accurately presented and publicised.

273
The Government have an incentive, not to look at real outcomes, which are getting worse, but to create league tables. If we ever focus on sensible outcome measures, mechanisms for assessing them already exist. To a certain extent, the quality agenda has been met by those measures; clinical revalidation of doctors and, I hope, other health professionals is assessed in a way that yet another inspectorate will not match. If anything, morale in hospitals is suffering because clinical staff, who are working hard, face a profusion of inspections. At the John Radcliffe, morale is already at rock bottom from the Government's scapegoating and the naming and shaming exercise of league tables; that is without the threat of yet another inspection, which will simply show that the hospital does not have the resources or staff.
I was delighted that the hon. Gentleman called for more nurses, beds and funding, as we have not heard that from his party before. However, we also need no more inspectorates and no more false measures.
I urge hon. Members to reject the Bill. Although we currently measure the wrong things badly, it will not help to measure the wrong things better.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry,. David Amess,. David Cameron, Sir Sydney Chapman,. Robert Jackson,. Boris Johnson and. Andrew MacKay.

Hospital Inspectorate
  HOSPITAL INSPECTORATE
  Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to establish an independent inspectorate of hospitals to provide independent inspection of waiting lists, waiting times, hospital efficiency and clinical cleanliness: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 451].
Orders of the Day

  International Development Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is legislatively to entrench poverty reduction as the overriding aim of United Kingdom development assistance and to ensure that with two exceptions, which I shall come to, money for development assistance is spent for that reason alone.
  As hon. Members know, the reduction of poverty has been the guiding principle of all our development efforts since 1997. That central objective and the clarity of focus that it brings have been widely supported in debates on the Bill in the House and in the other place, and by the International Development Committee and the public.
  Under existing legislation, the Secretary of State could change that policy without reference to Parliament. She has an undesirable amount of flexibility in using development assistance resources, and a future Secretary of State could, for instance, reinstate a policy of tying aid, thus distorting its use and decreasing its efficiency, or use the aid budget to pursue other short-term political or commercial ends.
  Clearly, any future Government have the right to change policy, but given the growth in our budget and in parliamentary and public support for our poverty reduction focus, I believe that any future Government should be required to seek Parliament's approval for a shift away from poverty reduction as our central policy objective.
  We should continually remind ourselves that one in five of the 6 billion people who share the planet still live in abject poverty. With the abundance and knowledge that exist in the world, it shames and disgraces us that such poverty and inequality continue. Although that is perhaps the most important moral issue of our time, it is also a practical issue which engages our interests. If, in our increasingly globalised world, we fail to deal with such division and inequality, we can expect even more instability and environmental degradation, which will endanger our future and that of subsequent generations.
  Since 1997, the United Kingdom has led the international effort to place the systematic reduction of poverty at the core of the whole international development effort. We have not only focused our bilateral programme on poverty reduction, but worked throughout the international system to achieve a global commitment to focus it on the systematic reduction of poverty in every developing country.
  There has been much progress. All the main players in the international development community, including the World Bank, most multilateral development banks, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the G7, have agreed that the international development targets, which are now incorporated in the millennium development goals, should

  275
  be the central objective of the collaborative international development effort. Those goals were reaffirmed at the UN's millennium assembly.
  We firmly believe that an international development system dedicated to those goals can greatly improve current performance and that the targets are achievable if we focus our efforts and improve our effectiveness. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has received my letter, but the world is already on track to meet the goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015. That will enable 1 billion people to lift them selves out of extreme poverty.
  The World Bank projects that, on present trends, the proportion of the population of developing countries living on less than $1 a day—I should stress that that is less than the equivalent of what a dollar a day buys in the US; in other words, it is a tiny income—will fall to 12.3 per cent. in 2015, compared with 29 per cent. in 1990. That will be a considerable achievement, but it depends on a continuing commitment to reform focused on poverty reduction led by the developing countries the themselves and supported by the international community, and we must be clear that it will still leave millions in abject poverty.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: As I understand the briefing that I have received, $1 a day was an income target at an earlier stage and there was no significant change in the number of people living on that income over the 20 years following the start of that development programme in 1960. How can the Secretary of State be confident that that situation can be so dramatically improved today when the proportion of those in poverty—living on less than $1 a day—was similar in the 1980s to that in the 1960s? We must also bear it in mind that $1 a day purchased more in the 1960s than it does today.
  Clare Short: In the past 30 years, there has been great progress in poverty reduction across the world and more human beings have made the journey out of extreme poverty to a better life in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years of human history, but world population has grown massively, from 1 billion in 1960 to 3 billion in 1990 and 6 billion now, and we are moving towards 9 billion.
  Although we have made progress, there has also been massive population growth. That is partly because we have made progress: people live longer and children survive, so there are more human beings living in extreme poverty. There is a paradox—we have made great progress, but there is more human suffering. From our progress, we can learn how to scale up our efforts and take them to more people. The only way to reduce human suffering and to stabilise world population is to improve people's lives and give them a chance to get their children, particularly the girls, educated.
  The measure relating to $1 a day was worked out on purchasing power parity in 1988—I am speaking from memory—so that one could compare, country by country, what people bought with the equivalent of $1 in their country with what could be bought for $1 in the US. It is a tiny amount, but that information is updated by comparative studies made across the world.
  276
  In 1990, we set the target of halving by 2015 the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, and we are on track to achieve that. By then, 1 billion people will have made that great journey, but millions will still be living in abject poverty. We shall not have finished the task by 2015, but we will have shown that we can pull the whole international system together to improve its performance and that we have in our hands the capacity to work systematically towards the elimination of abject poverty from the human condition. That is what we are trying to achieve with our current efforts.
  To achieve this aim, we need to improve the way in which international development assistance is provided. Old-fashioned aid is provided by funding large numbers of well intentioned but disconnected projects, which leave little sustainable impact, and which, through the accounting and evaluation requirements of large numbers of individual donors, use up the capacity of frail administrative systems to improve the quality and effectiveness of their own administration.
  Clearly, that old-fashioned system was well intentioned—it took some money, set up charitable projects and brought relief to the suffering poor—but when the money runs out, the projects collapse and there is no sustainable improvement in the effectiveness of Government services in the countries that receive such assistance.
  We are working with others to focus the international approach to development assistance on backing up poverty reduction strategies drawn up by the Governments of developing countries in full consultation with their people. Those strategies seek to combine macro-economic and social policy objectives to ensure that resources from tax revenues, debt relief and aid funds can all be directed towards a much stronger effort to improve services and economic management. When the economy grows, revenue levels rise and better sustainable services can be provided by those countries' own government systems to supply education and health care for everyone.
  Such refocusing will require international development efforts to have systematic poverty reduction as their objective, as enshrined in the Bill. That is a big shift in the use and effectiveness of development assistance, which we are trying to drive through the international system to increase our achievements.
  As everyone knows, the House has approved a reversal in the decline of the UK development budget that occurred during the 1980s and much of the 1990s. Since 1997, the UK effort has increased from 0.26 per cent. of gross national product to 0.33 per cent., and my budget has increased from £2.2 billion to £3.6 billion. That increase has been provided on the basis that the resources will be spent on poverty reduction. It is right, therefore, that the legislation that underpins spending that money should entrench the requirement that those funds be used to contribute to poverty reduction, not on other objectives.
  Tony Baldry: It is a welcome fact that UK development aid is increasing. For the first time in 40 years, our development aid budget is larger than that of France, but, in percentage terms, the United States still has a tiny aid budget—0.1 per cent. What can we do

  277
  collectively to persuade the United States that it is in its interest and that of the international community to engage further in development aid?
  Clare Short: That is a very important point. There is $55 billion in the international development system, and we need that money to invest in giving Governments the capacity to run their economies and social sectors better so that they can grow their economies and liberate their people. Although this country is raising its aid budget to £3.6 billion, we spend £100 billion on our social security system, so increasing those resources should not be difficult for us. The US has the lowest aid budget of any OECD country.
  Two steps can be taken. First, we should show that we are using aid more effectively. Many people stopped believing in aid when it was used to prop up corrupt regimes; that undermined commitment. If we can show that aid is being used effectively—that poverty is systematically being reduced and that more children are in school—we can reengage the public in believing.
  Secondly, the other side of the coin as regards what happened in the US is the hope that something good comes out of the bad of 11 September. The mood of the United States was turning inwards, but there is now a growing understanding that the only way to make any country safe is to make the world more equitable and safe. That means reaching out to the poorest countries and giving them the capacity to offer hope for their people, rather than the hopelessness that sometimes inspires people to join ugly movements. Hopelessness is never an excuse, but it is a breeding ground.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury that this matter is a priority. We hope that we can get the international community to concentrate on international development, because that is right and because it is the only way to make the world safe. If we all work together, we may be able to make progress.
  Mr. Edward Leigh:On the subject of priorities, the Bill focuses on the eradication of poverty. When the right hon. Lady decides which countries are granted aid and how much, to what extent is she motivated by their human rights record, particularly as regards the persecution of religious and other minorities?
  Clare Short: We must first realise that the UK's direct bilateral budget, which is about half our effort, is part of an international system. Rather than trying to make our budget perfect, we must make the whole system work internationally so that historical patterns are complemented by others. So long as we ensure that everyone is adequately provided for, that makes sense. However, all the research shows that the most effective way to use aid is to focus it on reformers and where there are large numbers of poor people. Then, penny for penny or dollar for dollar, it is more effective in Driving up standards and reducing poverty.
  On respect for human rights and minorities, which the hon. Gentleman asked about, when one looks across the world one sees that minorities tend to be the poorest. Therefore, focusing on the poor and giving them a better chance necessarily focuses on the needs of minorities, whether in Vietnam, China. India, parts of Africa or elsewhere.
  278
  So a focus on poverty automatically leads one to a focus on minorities.
  The universal declaration of human rights specifically mentions political, civil, social and economic rights. It establishes, for example, every child's right to an education. Although the declaration was written in 1948, it also states that primary education should be free. If we focus on human rights, we must focus not only on people's right to speak, to be free from political persecution and to practise their religion, but, for example, on their children's right to go to school.
  The truly difficult question, which I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough(Mr. Leigh)has asked me before, is what to do in the most badly governed countries, where some of the poorest and most depressed people live. We cannot provide resources to their Governments because they would be mis-spent. We are working, therefore, not only to improve our ways of getting humanitarian relief to people but to strengthen people's capacity to demand change. That is difficult, but we have to do it; otherwise, we shall simply be turning our backs on the poorest and most needy countries and people. That would not do either.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that respect for human rights depends on how well educated a population is, and that that depends on the relief of poverty in the first place?
  Clare Short: I recommend that hon. Members who have not recently read the universal declaration of human rights re-read that document. It is the most wonderful piece of work, in both its writing and its conception. It tries to encapsulate all the basic rights that every human being needs to enjoy to have the dignity of humanity. Those rights include, for example, the right to speak, to practise one's religion, to be consulted on politics, to have respect for one's culture, to see one's children educated and to receive health care. People have the right not to be oppressed and a positive right to the things that enable the enjoyment of a decent life.
  The universal declaration imposes on everyone in the international system a duty to try to achieve those rights for all people as rapidly as possible. The duty is placed first on each country's Government, and a further duty is placed on us all to seek a form of world governance that maximises the chances of all those rights being realised by all people.
  I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)that education is the key factor in creating conditions in all countries that enable everyone to celebrate all those rights. Progress is always possible. If we are to make social and economic progress and to have a decent world, we should all be seeking to respect the rights of every human being, especially those of the poorest, the minorities and the marginalised.
  Jim Knight: The events of 11 September have been mentioned. I have read that the World Bank's assessment is that the attacks are likely to have an adverse effect on economic growth in developing countries both this year and next, which will increase by 10 million the number of people living in poverty in the

  279
  countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned. Does she agree with that assessment? If so, how will that affect the goal of reducing international poverty?
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right—the World Bank has assessed the likely effects, and the statistics that he quoted are correct. Before 11 September, the world was heading into recession, and the world's two largest economies—those of Japan, which has long been doing poorly, and the United States—were experiencing a downturn. The danger is that the shock and the shaken confidence caused by 11 September will deepen that downturn. Although it will affect every country, the poorest countries can least afford to deal with it and with the resulting hurt.
  That assessment is right. We must now try to create an upturn in the world economy—one that is equitable—and restore confidence. The successful launch this weekend of the Doha trade round would help that. An upturn in the economies of Europe and north America would help not only the people of those countries but the people of the developing world.
  The world has, of course, changed. We used to talk about our own country's economy as though we could control it as a political issue. Now, not even the United Kingdom, let alone a poor country, can look after its own economy. Increasingly, we have the responsibility to try to manage the world economy in a manner that brings benefits to all, especially to the poor. Although we are experiencing a downturn, we must work to turn it round as rapidly as possible.
  The current relevant legislation is the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980—a consolidating Act that Draws its provisions from 33 statutes. Much of it is outdated or obsolete. New legislation is required to update it to entrench the objective of poverty reduction, to provide new powers to support the building of civil society and a commitment to development in the poorest countries and in our own country, and to help the private sector in developing countries to build an economy that will grow and give people the chance of a better life and better public services.
  The House will recall that, in the Pergau darn judgment, the courts found that the powers in the existing legislation were so widely Drawn that—in the court' s rather polite words—they caused the Minister to "mislead himself' into believing that he could use aid money to support economically unsound projects. Some political imperatives were connected to that misjudgment, which the courts held to be illegal. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that we must ensure that that does not recur in any future Administration. We must also ensure that a future Administration do not reintroduce a policy of tying aid without having to change the law to do so.
  The purpose of the work that we undertake—the reduction of poverty—will be enshrined in the. Bill, which will not allow priority to be given to commercial or political interests. Of course, all Governments have legitimate commercial and political interests, but the aid budget should not be misused to serve them; the aid budget exists for another purpose. Development assistance
  280
  should be focused on the reduction of poverty. Short-term considerations that do not contribute to a reduction in poverty are not permitted by the Bill. I am sure that the House will agree that that is a good discipline and that it should be imposed on all holders of my office.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan:The Secretary of State knows that not only do I generally agree with her on these issues, but I generally support the Bill. I should like to take her back to the difficult issue of poverty reduction, which is so critical. Is it not often the governance of many third-world, developing countries that leads to poverty? How much more can we do in our policy or in the Bill to stop poor governance and the Government corruption that lead to the poverty that we seek to alleviate by sending money?
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right that, in the modern world, poor governance is increasingly a block on the economic growth and improvement in social provision that enable economies to grow and improve people's lives. That fact is truer now than ever before because of the increased availability of international investment and foreign direct investment. Such investment will go only where corruption is not rampant and where there is peace and proper enforcement of commercial contracts. Although poor governance was always undesirable, now it is an absolute block to economic development.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, more of the Department's efforts are being devoted to trying to improve the effectiveness of government. The quality of the management of the public finances is absolutely key. Better, more transparent management of public finances ensures that the available money is better used, and good systems ensure that corruption does not occur, although it may be a temptation.
  We should all remind ourselves of one fact. In Ethiopia, for example, GDP per capita is $100 and 62 per cent., I think, of children who survive to five are chronically malnourished. It is very difficult to be a good Government in an extremely poor country, but Governments must strive to achieve that. We must all maintain the pressure, and we must all support and build better systems. Although efforts to provide for everyone and to maintain a democratic ethos must continue, it is difficult to do so in poor countries. We should therefore have some humility when considering these issues. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was correct on his fundamental point: good governance is the key to economic growth and the provision of better services, which in turn enable people to improve their lives and make the reduction of poverty possible.
  The House should be clear—sometimes there is muddle in the debate—that the overriding objective of poverty reduction does not mean that development efforts are restricted to the provision of social assistance or charitable handouts. The White Paper, "Making Globalisation Work for the Poor", sets out clearly the conditions needed to reduce poverty in developing countries. They include economic growth that brings benefits to all, not merely to a small elite, and the provision of appropriate quality Government services. So often in the past when we have said that the focus is on poverty, people have thought only of social policy. Securing a good macro-economic policy and a thriving private sector, however, is all part of bringing about enough economic growth to reduce poverty systematically.

  281
  To achieve such conditions, Governments need to be able to run effective states. They need, for example—this is the point that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mrs Robathan)was making—the capacity to manage their public finances well, and to raise revenues properly and fairly. They also need effective regulatory systems to provide the framework for a thriving private sector that can attract both domestic and foreign investment.
  One of the tragedies of Africa, for example, is that 40 per cent. of domestic savings leave the continent. If it is not possible to bring about conditions in which domestic savings stay at home, it will not be possible to bring about the conditions that attract foreign direct investments. All those are key considerations.
  The creation of a properly accountable security sector is crucial to the stability and security that are needed for economic growth and poverty reduction. We need police who enforce the law, and courts that enforce contracts and the like without being corrupt. Armed forces that are over-large or not democratically accountable often lead to instability, mis-spending and even military coups, and thus to the diversion of resources. Equally, the existence of a free and effective press is important to secure the democratic accountability that is necessary for the functioning of a successful modern state.
  The Bill will allow support in all those areas to continue, as long as such assistance is designed to contribute to the reduction of poverty. We are, for instance, engaging more in security sector reform. We want proper accountability for the armed forces, and more effective and law-abiding policing. Such conditions are also key to the reduction of poverty: the fact that the Bill identifies that as our objective does not mean that we cannot engage in all the other complex areas of policy. The Bill does not in any way restrict the sectors in which we work, but it requires the purpose of our effort to be to generate institutions and policies that will lead to the systematic reduction of poverty. That is the test.
  As I said earlier, there are two exceptions to the Bill's overriding requirement that poverty reduction must be the purpose of international development assistance expenditure. The first concerns assistance given to the overseas territories. The Government's responsibility for those territories goes beyond a commitment to help them to reduce poverty, although of course any assistance that we provide should include that objective. The requirement that assistance to the overseas territories must be likely to contribute to a reduction of poverty is therefore replaced by a requirement that our assistance must be provided for the purpose of furthering sustainable development or improving the welfare of their population. It will allow the Government to go on providing the territories with all types of support, such as direct budgetary support or support for the construction of infrastructure when those meet reasonable needs.
  The second exception relates to assistance provided in response to disasters or emergencies. That is because such assistance will not in all cases be likely to contribute to a reduction of poverty. Disasters, for example, do not always occur in the poorest parts of countries, or in the poorest countries. If the requirement to provide humanitarian assistance always had to serve the objective of poverty reduction, our ability to move rapidly whenever people were in trouble would be restricted. The
  282
  United Kingdom has a very good record for speed and flexibility in its responses to humanitarian crises, and that capacity should not be put at risk.
  The Bill also broadens the Secretary of State's powers to achieve the narrower poverty reduction focus. It provides a firmer legislative basis for the support of work that improves development awareness and advocacy. That includes what is done in our own country. I am pleased to note a growing cross-party consensus in the House that this is an imperative for the country, and that we should unite behind it. I think that the public care about these matters too, but need to be more informed about the way in which the reforms of trade rules and other arrangements can ensure that we make progress.
  The United Kingdom could make an important contribution on the world stage in this regard, because of the kind of country we are. That is why we have increased our funding for development awareness in the UK: we want to secure that informed and deeply committed public support. Similarly, we want to help people in badly governed developing countries to understand their right to use democracy to demand better governance for themselves. We want to fund that kind of awareness among the poor, not just the provision of social services.
  Under the existing law, we have had to fund such work under the annual Appropriation Acts rather than by means of mainstream legislation. We have been strengthening our work since 1997, but only with funds committed under those Acts. Henceforth, if the Bill is passed, it will be possible to fund it under the new powers that it conveys.
  The second area in which the Bill extends existing powers is that of support for the private sector. Under current legislation, our powers are restricted to the provision of grants and loans, which are not always the best way in which to help enterprises become commercially viable.
  The firm that makes Divine chocolate, for example, is a not-for-profit company involving Ghanaian cocoa producers and some of our non-governmental organisations. It wanted a guarantee from us, so that it could obtain a loan from the National Westminster bank to enable it to get its enterprise moving. We have no powers to give guarantees; we can only give grants. A grant, however, can undermine the discipline of a commercial purpose. We had to get special permission from the Treasury to give a guarantee. We are therefore taking the power to make such provision ourselves.
  Similarly, micro-finance should not be funded only by overseas development assistance. We should be securing banking across the world to provide poor people with credit through mainstream commercial agencies, and we are doing more to encourage that. We need the capacity to widen the opportunities available to us, such as the taking of shares or the provision of convertible loans, options and guarantees. The Bill will enable us to support far more effectively the building of private sector capacity capable of contributing to the reduction of poverty.
  Mr. Robert Walter: In earlier times, we might have considered some of the tasks the Secretary of State has described to be the responsibility of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Does she see any future role for the CDC, or can we now write it off as a private sector bank?
  Clare Short: Not at all. Legislation was introduced in the last Parliament—and, I think, supported by Members

  283
  on both sides of the House—to build on the CDC, but to try to use it as an instrument to secure more private sector investment in the poorest countries, where the private sector currently tends not to invest. The aim was to use expertise and commitment to developing countries to draw in such investment, and to parallel the public sector investment that was already there. The CDC is undergoing a restructuring with the aim of achieving that objective. The current climate does not make the restructuring easy, but we are making progress. Indeed, I had a meeting about it this morning.
  We are talking about big, long-term investment, however. The CDC is trying to move more in the direction of equities. The objective is to strengthen, for instance, share-management capacity in developing countries, but to use the £1 billion of public sector investment to attract private sector money to countries that do not currently receive it, and show the private sector that a reasonable return can be obtained.
  That is an important tool. It is not controlled by the Bill—earlier legislation has governed the restructuring—but it is part of the UK's commitment to our development effort.
  Dr. Tonge: Can the Secretary of State assure us that the restructuring of the CDC has not caused the poorest countries to miss out on investment?
  Clare Short: I can give that assurance to the hon. Lady—I nearly said "my hon. Friend". I do not know whether that would have offended her.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: What a giveaway.
  Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman may learn, it is possible to be fond of people across the Floor.
  There has been some misleading writing, particularly in The Economist —not my favourite publication—suggesting that some of the restructuring is moving away from the poorest. The argument goes like this: in the poorest countries it is possible to obtain only a low rate of return, so the CDC should stay in old-fashioned agricultural investments with a very low rate of return, or it will turn against the poor. If that is true—and I do not believe that it is—it leads to despair. It means that the poorest countries will never be able to attract private sector investment providing the return that the private sector needs. I am thinking of pension funds and so on.
  Often, agricultural investments with a fairly low rate of return are sold on to local people; they do not cease to exist. The CDC, however, is trying to become involved in more added value and equity to show that the private sector can go to the poorer countries. I assure the hon. Lady that we are still determined to use that instrument to secure more investment in poor developing countries: that is the purpose of the exercise, and there will be no diversion from it. Hon. Members must not believe everything that they read in The Economist.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: My right hon. Friend mentioned Divine chocolate and I wish to remind hon. Members that it is available in the
  284
  House of Commons. It is a wonderful chocolate and if hon. Members would like to buy some for Christmas, they would be assisting the cause in a positive way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I had not realised that this was a commercial channel.
  Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as well as being the best Parliamentary Private Secretary in the House, is also Chair of the Catering Committee. He has ensured that many fair trade products are available here, and that has been supported by hon. Members on both sides. I am sure that we are all proud of that chocolate and want to consume more of it, even though we have to watch our waistlines.
  In the course of discussion of the Bill in Parliament and elsewhere, several proposals have been made for emphasising particular sectors or issues, such as a commitment to children, empowering women, or ensuring good governance. We have resisted all those pressures and will continue to do so. That does not mean that we reject the importance of the issues. Far from it; we agree that children are not only vulnerable but the key to future development, and that we must ensure that this generation of poor children has the opportunity of education and health care denied to its parents in order to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. We recognise that, as Kofi Annan put it, poverty has a woman's face. Some 70 per cent. of the world's poor are women—and poor children often come from female-headed households—and securing girls' literacy is one of the most effective ways to combat poverty. We also agree that failings of governance, as I said earlier, are one of the major causes of poverty and wasted resources.
  We still believe, however, that any attempt to entrench specific reference to the importance of those issues in legislation would weaken the capacity of my Department and impair our adaptability and flexibility. The flexibility of our current arrangements makes my Department one of the most effective and respected development organisations in the world, and the country is entitled to be proud of the Department. That was underlined just last month by the OECD's development assistance committee's peer review of our programme. The needs and performance of countries and regions vary, and we must be able to deploy our resources where they can best meet those needs and complement what other development partners are doing. Using legislation to tie down proportions of our budget, however well intentioned, would impair our flexibility and effectiveness. USAID has had that problem, because Congress has decreed that so much should be spent on this, so much on that and so much on something else. It is done with good intentions, but it leads to a lack of flexibility with every organisation having to ensure that its budget meets those proportions.
  During the Bill's passage through the other place, some very misleading claims were made about the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the IPPF. In case that confusion extends to this House, I should make it clear that UNFPA is the largest UN provider of sexual and reproductive health assistance to developing countries. It works in poor countries across the globe. The fund provides support to enable millions of women in developing countries to go through pregnancy and childbirth more safely—maternal mortality still causes enormous loss of women's lives, which throws families

  285
  into poverty and is one of the big differences between developing and developed countries—and to improve neonatal survival. It is also playing a leading role in efforts to prevent the further spread of HIV-AIDS by increasing the supply of condoms across the world. UNFPA has helped to ensure that women in the most difficult of situations are not forgotten and get the services that they need.
  The IPPF also provides much-needed family planning and sexual and reproductive health services through its family planning associations in many poor countries across the world. The reality is that without those associations, many women would have no choice in matters of their own sexual and reproductive health.
  Both organisations do fine work that we support, and we should all honour what they do. However, despite the valuable and essential work of the organisations, there are those who would prefer that they did not exist, or that the Government did not support their work. Those critics' favoured route for attacking both organisations is to make false allegations about their programmes in China. The critics accuse UNFPA and the IPPF, and by extension the British Government—it is a cross-party accusation, because it was made when the Conservatives were in power, too—of supporting coercive family planning practices. Let me reassure the House, yet again, that those allegations are without foundation. Obviously, coercive fertility control is practised in China. We condemn such practices unequivocally. But those are the reasons why the work of UNFPA and the IPPF in China is so important. UNFPA's programme in China is designed to demonstrate that people can be provided with modern services and make their own choices about family size without coercion. That is the point.
  The reality is that the work of UNFPA and the IPPF has led to real advances. A service in which women and men are provided with information and choice in their sexual and reproductive care is now being developed in 860 counties, which is about one third of the total number of counties in China. In 1995, only five counties were piloting that approach. Birth quotas have been dropped in all the counties where UNFPA is working. It is unlikely that those changes would have happened without the influence and work of UNFPA and it is vital that we continue to support its important work.
  In conclusion, I remind the House that 6 billion people share this planet, of whom one in five are still living in extreme poverty with shortened lives, poor nourishment, lack of education and health care, and lack of access to clean water and sanitation. Some 10 million children die each year from malnourishment and preventable illness. Some 500,000 women die during childbirth for lack of simple medical interventions. Some 800 million people cannot read or write and 113 million children do not have access to primary education. That is the biggest moral challenge facing the world and that level of poverty and division endangers the future security of all our countries.
  The Government have been working to focus the international community on a commitment to greater equity and justice across the world. We have made gains. We are on track to help I billion people make their way out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015, but that is not enough. World population growth by 2020 to 2030 will leave another 1 billion or more in poverty. On present rates of progress, we will not have all children in school, or access to health care for all people, by 2015. Much
  286
  faster progress is possible. The purpose of the Bill is to require that UK development efforts must be focused on the mobilisation of a strong international commitment to the systematic reduction of poverty. That is an area in which the UK can make an important contribution to international justice and security. I strongly commend the Bill. As I said on the occasion of its predecessor's Second Reading, its purpose is simple, but profoundly important.
  6.18 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The events of 11 September have had a dramatic effect on the salience of international development, driving it up the international agenda. I wish to pay tribute to the work of the Secretary of State and her Department in keeping it high on the agenda. Since the House debated the earlier Bill, we are all much more aware, of the need to redouble our efforts to close the gap between rich and poor nations. It is, as my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, a common goal. My purpose today is to build on his good work and to help us towards our common objective.
  Britain has a strong record as a major donor of aid to the developing world. We take our international responsibilities seriously, and that has never been more apparent than in the present crisis. We bestride three spheres of influence, with our Commonwealth, as a member of the European Union, and with our special relationship with America. What we say today about the purpose of development aid sends an important signal to the wider world. Ours is one of the world's leading industrialised nations, so the percentage of gross domestic product that we are prepared to spend has a major impact. Both main political parties are committed to reaching the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent. of GDP on development aid, but the problem with raw percentages is that they take no account of the state of the economy. If an economy goes into recession, the percentage devoted to development aid may rise, even if the amount of cash falls. Those raw percentages often disguise a patchy picture of development aid provision around the world.
  The Bill offers a rare opportunity to debate the fundamental objectives of our international development programme. Millions of pounds are spent in the poorest countries of the world every year, and it is right to debate what that money is spent on and what we want to achieve. However, debates on international development should be about more than the amount that we spend, although that is important. They should also focus on what we should be doing. If we know our overall objectives, we are better able to target our spending and assess its results.
  A clear sense of our objectives will be vital at the Doha conference on international trade. Britain's voice will be listened to closely, as we are a trading nation. Again, both major political parties argue that globalisation can be a force for good in the developing world, as it opens up markets and opportunities for developing countries to expand their economies through greater trade with the economies in the developed world.
  Even so, we must be wary of initiatives that have not been thought through properly. The everything but arms initiative sounded good, but more work needs to be done on its practical consequences for producers in developing countries and here. That is especially important in relation to sugar. Failure to understand the markets for international

  287
  commodities and the interaction between developed and developing nations could mean that an initiative that sounds good could leave poorer countries worse off.
  We welcome the statement that progress must be made on agricultural reform. We urge the Government to press their counterparts in Europe not to hold up the trade talks on that point.
  There is a constant tension between the temptation of protectionism and the opportunities of free trade. We should take the lead in getting the matter right, simply because that is the right thing to do. In financial terms, opening up our markets and helping the developing world to achieve sustained economic growth through globalisation dwarfs all that the developed world offers in terms of direct aid and debt relief. However, that aid still adds up to vital relief. We must ensure that we spend our money in the right way. Critics sometimes uncharitably call that conscience money, but our aid in terms of debt relief is vital. I believe that it could be made still more effective, and we shall look for opportunities to achieve that with the Bill.
  Debt relief is not a once-and-for-all action. The underlying causes of debt accumulation must be tackled, and we should direct our attention to them if we want to stamp out the cycle of debt. I urge the Government not to fall into the trap of saying that debt relief is complete: instead, they must continually audit the state of indebtedness of the countries that we help. What about the countries that do not qualify under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative? We must be careful not to exclude or ignore other ways of helping them. Our focus should be on sustainable development to reduce their poverty.
  Unpayable debt is wrong because it restricts the ability of countries to move out of poverty. That brings us back to the core aim of the Bill. We agree that poverty reduction should be the central and foremost aim of the work of the Department for International Development. The Secretary of State referred earlier to the World Bank's view of progress in reducing the proportion of people living in poverty. No doubt that view was based on the world economic situation before 11 September. Is the World Bank's view that we are on target to meet the aim of reducing the number of countries in extreme poverty still true today?
  Poverty means that people have no choices in life. It can make them victims of their surroundings, not masters of it. Poverty leads to powerlessness. It cuts people off from education and lays them open to human rights abuses. Similarly, in developing countries. millions of poor people die from diseases that compromise their immune systems and lay them open to opportunist infections that would not be fatal here.
  The Bill will also need to stand the test of whether it will address the other problems that bedevil the developing world. Poverty reduction is the overarching aim, but will pursuit of that aim prevent proper attention being given to other key problems? For example, will poverty reduction give the Government better tools to tackle the appalling trade in young girls who are trafficked from places such as Ivory Coast to enter the European network of prostitution? Will it strengthen the
  288
  Government's capacity to clamp down on illicit drug production? Will it stop the constant flow of arms that stokes battle in areas of conflict?
  None of those matters are addressed directly by the aim of poverty reduction, but they are the cause of very real misery in the developing world. If some of them are addressed by other Government Departments, what is there in the Bill to combine their work more effectively with that of the Department for International Development?
  I assure the House that any suggestions that we make with regard to the Bill are intended in an entirely constructive spirit. I am not in the business of opposition for its own sake. We want the aims of this Bill to be achieved, and any amendments that we try to make to it will merely be an attempt to make a good Bill work better. We have this rare opportunity to legislate on international development, and we must judge the proposed changes to the law against the test of whether they will make the delivery of aid more effective.
  That is why at all previous stages of the Bill in the last Parliament, and in another place, we pressed for the incorporation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery and corruption in UK law. The United Kingdom is one of the 34 signatory countries to that convention, but it is unique among developed countries for not implementing it.
  Clare Short: The hon. Lady will know that the Queen's Speech contained a commitment to legislate to ensure that British law does not put implementation of the convention in doubt. I did not believe the early legal advice that stated that existing law would be sufficient in that regard. Will the Opposition give a commitment to support the legislation when it is brought forward? I accept that she may not be able to do so now, but such a commitment would mean that the legislation could be brought in much sooner.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank the Secretary of State for that intervention, as it enables me to go on to say what I had intended to say in any case. The Opposition very much support the early introduction of the OECD convention, and there is no substitute for striking while the iron is hot. The introduction of that convention could be incorporated in this Bill. In my limited experience of Parliament, I know that it is better to have a bird in the hand than to wait for one in the bush. We therefore have no hesitation in pressing the Government to use the Bill as a vehicle for the introduction of the OECD convention.
  As a reinforcing argument, let us look at the comments of organisations criticising Britain's tardiness in introducing legislative enactment of the convention. I am sure that the Secretary of State will know that, in June this year, Lawrence Cockcroft, chairman of Transparency International, an organisation of anti-corruption activists, said:
  "It is high time the UK stopped dragging its heels in the fight against international corruption and put an end to the current situation where we have no adequate legislation to make bribery abroad a criminal offence."
  I know that the right hon. Lady agrees that there is a need to act on the problem, as she told the Select Committee on International Development that the view of the OECD convention taken by the Government was damaging

  289
  Britain's reputation. We can restore our reputation by using the Bill to implement the convention. That would be entirely consistent with the Bill's main aim, as I am convinced that it would lead to a reduction in poverty.
  When the Bill was going through the House at the end of the last Parliament we were told that the main reason for not incorporating the convention was lack of time, but now the general election is out of the way, timing should be less of a problem. The Select Committee on International Development found that corruption was the No. 1 factor that deterred companies from investing in developing countries.
  As the Government have ratified the convention, we should seize the opportunity to implement it by incorporating it in the Bill. Alternatively, with world events moving so unpredictably, and the need to introduce emergency legislation in response, perhaps we could use such legislation to implement the convention on bribery and corruption. Certainly we shall use the Committee stage as an opportunity to table an amendment that would make it possible for the Government to do that; I can give the right hon. Lady that undertaking.
  Chris Ruane: Were there no opportunities for such legislation during the 18 years of Conservative rule?
  Mrs. Spelman: I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that the UK Government became a signatory to the UN convention on bribery and corruption during the Labour Administration—in 1998, if memory serves me correctly—so the opportunity to ratify it in law arose when his party was in government.
  Clare Short: The House, and everyone else, should know that the convention requires all OECD countries, not just the UK, to make it a criminal offence to offer a bribe to a public official abroad as well as at home, and to cease to make bribery tax deductible. Is it not shocking that before the convention, in all the OECD countries all over the world, bribes offered abroad were tax deductible at home? That is what this is about. The convention is a breakthrough, and now we need to ensure that it is honoured in all countries.
  Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has had it from both barrels, and I hope that he now has the clear impression that we strongly support the introduction of the convention to British law—sooner rather than later.
  For far too long, patterns of aid giving were subordinated to UK economic and political interests. The Bill seeks to end the phenomenon of tied aid. I place on record my party's support for that. We would not reintroduce the practice of tying aid to UK political, economic or diplomatic objectives. Aid spending should be primarily based on need. Tied aid does not serve the interests of the third world, and on those grounds we oppose it.
  Oxfam is concerned about the lack of specific detail in the Bill about aid untying, which receives no legal endorsement, although there was a commitment to it in the recent White Paper on globalisation. Some may think
  290
  that tied aid is a thing of the past, and I hope that it is, but we can never be certain that future aid will not be tied too closely to a broader political agenda.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Lady said about tied aid. I do not want to go over history, but looking to the future, is she aware that an International Monetary Fund report recently found about 186 examples of tied aid in only 23 aid development programmes? Tied aid is still going on internationally. Will she not only support its abolition in this Bill, but at the World Trade Organisation talks and in any future international discussions, give her party's support to the Government and all the agencies in getting rid of it?
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I said earlier, this country is in the unique position of having at least three spheres of international influence, and we could use those to stress the importance of departing from the practice of tied aid.
  We may not have to look too far afield to see opportunities to encourage countries with which we are in partnership or some other relationship, and to urge this action upon them. Indeed, the European aid budget is often spent for political reasons. The International Development Committee's report on European aid says:
  "The fundamental mistake has been to allocate excessive funds in the first place for predominantly political reasons".
  One glance at the pattern of aid giving by member states reveals a pattern that, not surprisingly, reflects the history and self-interest of the countries concerned.
  Trying to achieve agreement to give multilaterally proves much more difficult, however. Recently, multilateral giving through the European Union was heavily criticised by the European Court of Auditors as cumbersome and over-centralised. If we are asking the European Union to depoliticise, to speed up its aid delivery and to reduce waste on aid, we must be sure that we set a good example ourselves. The Bill will enable us to move positively in that direction.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State reminded us that the world's poorest are often members of persecuted minorities. I entirely accept that, as my hon. Friend says, the traditional way of tying aid is wrong, but does she think that we should take cognisance of the human rights record of countries to which we are considering giving aid?
  Mrs. Spelman: While my hon. Friend was speaking, the conundrum of Burma came to mind. Its Government have an unacceptable human rights record, and we know that within it there are persecuted minorities in desperate need of humanitarian relief. That is the kind of acid test that I would like to address in Committee, to ensure that the drafting allows us to find a way to meet the real needs of the minorities in a country whose Government have a record of obstructing relief for those who need it. His intervention has drawn attention to an important test against which the Bill must be measured, and that is what we shall do in Committee.
  We are all concerned that the right schemes should get funding for the right reasons. As I have said, we endorse the aim of reducing poverty, but we are concerned that some projects that do not have poverty reduction as their

  291
  first and foremost function may be adversely affected by the Bill. One way of ensuring that they continue to receive funding would be explicitly to mention good governance as contributing to poverty reduction. Schemes that work to reduce corruption or to support customs and excise functions would then be secure.
  We should seek a clearer definition of certain terms in the Bill, which relies heavily on the Secretary of State's interpretation of what would reduce poverty. I understand that that allows flexibility; she explained that that was the benefit. Ultimately, however, it is her interpretation that will decide where her Department can and cannot allocate spending. No doubt we shall be told that that will be set out in guidance to the Bill, but we rarely have sight of such guidance when we scrutinise legislation.
  The other term that might be worthy of definition is "humanitarian". I remind hon. Members that one of the chief aims of the Bill is to ensure that aid is not used for political or diplomatic leverage. With humanitarian aid it is easier than with most other kinds of aid to misuse aid spending to serve a wider political agenda.
  Humanitarian aid, like other forms of aid, should help all who are in need, whatever their political or religious standpoint. It might be better if the Bill reflected that principle. We are concerned that, without a proper definition of humanitarian aid, some necessary help may be prevented.
  One example is the war aim of the coalition partners in the present crisis to reconstruct Afghanistan—an aim that we wholeheartedly support. We do not know at what time reconstruction may be able to commence, although we have pushed hard for it, because it must happen if ordinary Afghans are to believe that our war is not with them. We need to think carefully about what form it should take. May I suggest to the Secretary of State that, cost and risk permitting, we might jointly visit Pakistan to make a better assessment of how British aid could be deployed in the rebuilding process? Given the destruction in Afghanistan, even before 11 September, it is likely that reconstruction will be a long process, going well beyond the immediate humanitarian crisis. It would be a pity if the process of reconstruction were curtailed prematurely because of the way in which humanitarian aid was interpreted.
  The principal reason why we support the Bill is that it will ensure that the Department for International Development's spending goes on worthy projects. It is the policy of both main parties that international development spending should increase to the UN guideline of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. It would be tragic if the funds that we have were wasted on projects that sustained poverty or did not focus on development.
  In another place, their Lordships raised the issue of overseas development aid being used to help regimes that perpetrate human rights abuses. The right hon. Lady referred to a certain amendment and its outcome in the other place. This is a difficult area, and I choose my words carefully when I reiterate what Baroness Rawlings said. Although we want women in developing countries to have access to the best possible help with family planning, we do not support a policy of coercive abortion and sterilisation.
  292
  We must be careful that any change to the legislation that we might propose would not prevent much of the good work done by organisations such as the UN Population Fund, to which the right hon. Lady referred. No one, I am sure, would wish to see a suspension in the help to victims of HIV and AIDS, as they are provided with advice on their sexual health. It is significant, however, that the United States Congress Committee on International Relations is holding a series of public hearings on the subject. As far as I am aware, our International Development Committee has never held an inquiry on this. Might I suggest that we would be in a better position to judge what impact the Bill would have if a Special Standing Committee could briefly precede the Standing Committee and take evidence beforehand? That is not a ploy to delay the Bill's passage but simply a way of getting to the bottom of this important issue upon which, as far as I am aware. Parliament has not received direct evidence.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to debate international development and what we are spending our budget on. It is supremely important that we make the right choices in this matter. Important steps have been taken in the reduction of poverty. More people have been relieved from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500. We support, without stinting, the aim of reducing poverty in the third world. We want a drastic reduction in crippling poverty as one of the defining features of the 21st century. To achieve that will require consistent and determined effort on the part of the Governments of the world. I hope that the Bill, once we have improved it in Committee, will help the UK Government to play their part in this most important process.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: One thing among many that impressed me about the speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is that I think that she demonstrated that eight months is indeed a long time in politics. When her predecessor sat down after his contribution to the debate at our last attempt at introducing the Bill, I said that he was extremely mean-minded. Nobody would dare say that about the hon. Member for Meriden. She has been generous and constructive, particularly with regard to the OECD convention, and I look forward to progress in that respect.
  I welcome the Bill, as I did last time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put it before the House. It is about poverty reduction, which is pivotal to the aim of the United Kingdom development assistance programme. She touched on the huge challenges that exist. We see conflict, drought, famine, a growing population and the compelling issue of globalisation. I was pleased that that was addressed today not only at Prime Minister's Question Time, when my right hon. Friend made a plea for access to markets for developing countries, but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she spoke about the forthcoming conference in Doha. We wish the conference well in its considerations and her well when she makes her contribution.
  I believe that the House and the country alike will support as a matter of urgency the Government's determination not only to reduce poverty but to eradicate it—consistent with the title of the White Paper that my

  293
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development produced towards the end of 2000. A Government who are determined to tackle social exclusion at home are all the more likely to fight poverty abroad and to be convincing as they approach that task. In my view, a Government who are set on reducing health inequalities for children in Coatbridge and Chryston are a Government who have the moral authority to improve the life chances of babies born in Karachi or Cambodia. I believe that that is central to the Bill.
  In June 2001, after our last attempt to introduce the Bill, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees published a report on refugee children in Africa. Its conclusions are chilling for the world's children. Poverty is at the heart of the problem. The report says:
  "Countries of asylum where the proportion of refugee children exceeds 60 per cent include Angola (69%), Togo (64%), Guinea (63%), Burundi (62%), Rwanda (61%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (61%) and Sudan (60%)."
  I know that my right hon. Friend the. Secretary of State is to the fore in seeking to challenge that picture.
  UNICEF produced a report with children at the heart of its thinking. I draw it to the attention of the House because it is relevant to the Bill. The report, entitled "State of the World's Children 2002", outlines progress made during the 1990s towards goals set at the 1990 world summit for children. It says:
  "a decade that had begun with promise had been marked by missed opportunities".
  It says specifically that over the decade the absolute number of malnourished children in sub-Saharan Africa actually increased. Between 1990 and 2000, the mortality rate for under-fives increased in 14 countries, nine of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Again in sub-Saharan Africa, only 47 per cent. of children are immunised against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus. A woman in sub-Saharan Africa faces a one in 13 chance of dying during pregnancy and childbirth. Finally, the report said that AIDS
  "is destroying families, communities and nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Women and girls are the fastest-growing group of new HIV infections. Sub-Saharan Africa is hardest hit. Here, life expectancy is plummeting."
  As we face that challenge, it is right that the reduction of poverty should be at the heart of our approach and that we should endorse measures to address what is happening in the developing world.
  The hon. Member for Meriden referred to Afghanistan. We have—rightly—held several debates on that country and, no doubt, our focus on Afghanistan will continue. However, even prior to the events of 11 September—indeed, on 4 September—the UN produced a report, "The Deepening Crisis", which drew our attention to what was happening in Afghanistan and what was of concern to Afghans at that time: the war that had gone on for more than 20 years; the refugee problem; and the inability to ensure that food was delivered to those who needed it. Although the difficulty has increased immeasurably since 11 September, it would have been important none the less for us to address the problems of Afghanistan tonight.
  One of the issues that has been raised in another place—I shall refer later to the discussions held there—is close to my heart, as many hon. Members know: disability. Baroness Wilkins drew attention to its importance during debates in the other place, and it is also important for us to consider what the issue means for us
  294
  and what can be done. The World Bank estimated that about one fifth of the world's poorest people have disabilities. UNESCO studies tell us that only 1 to 2 per cent. of children with disabilities receive any education. With 300 million disabled people in developing countries—often hidden away—it is not surprising that Howard White, the author of the 1999 "Africa Poverty Status Report", concluded that disability was the hidden face of African poverty. He was right, and that point is also relevant in our debates on human rights.
  The Bill encourages us to discuss humanitarian aid. There is agreement on both sides of the House that aid—like debt relief—has often helped the interests of the donor rather than those of the recipient. My right hon. Friend is anxious that her Bill should avoid that outcome.
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was correct in his intervention: by increasing the focus on international development, Parliament has done that cause a great service. Furthermore, Parliament has enabled us, without being patronising, to invite other European Union nations, and those members of the international community who are able to participate, to emulate what we are trying to do. It is important to them in respect of world peace and in bringing about the kind of world in which we assume that they, too, want to live.
  I welcome the provisions that allow the Secretary of State to give guarantees and acquire securities as well as to dispense grants and loans. I know that my right hon. Friend will continue constructively to question the EU—as she has done in the past—about how funding is made available, how it is spent and where the accountability that we all want comes into the picture.
  I also welcome the Bill's emphasis on development education. We all know of, and have particularly recognised during these recent unfortunate weeks, the tremendous role played by the aid agencies: Oxfam, Care International, CAFOD—the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development—and in Scotland, SCIAF—the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. They, among others, are playing a vital role as non-governmental organisations are expected to do—and indeed do—to ensure that humanitarian aid is made available not to Governments for prestigious projects but to those who need it, thereby continuing that attack on poverty that we are all determined to pursue.
  I congratulate the Overseas Development Institute for its focus on these matters, especially its emphasis on empowerment—a point mentioned by my right hon. Friend—including empowerment for women in the developing world as well as elsewhere.
  My right hon. Friend clarified the issue of tied aid. I quote briefly from her intervention on my speech on Second Reading of the previous International Development Bill when she said:
  "If tied aid is supplied, the goods or consultancies procured have to go back to the providing country. All the World Bank research shows that that creates a gross inefficiency and aid is reduced in value by 25 pet cent. The Bill, which states that poverty reduction must be the target, will make it impossible to reintroduce tied aid. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have announced that we are getting rid of it completely."—[0fficial Report, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 187.]
  We very much welcome the progress made on that in April.

  295
  I congratulate the Government, especially my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development, on their remarkable contribution on world debt, which lies at the heart of so many problems. The reform of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative is welcome and it is right that we should continue to review it. My right hon. Friends have pushed for 100 per cent. bilateral write-offs with considerable success.
  The goal that the Government have set for the reduction of world poverty—halving it by 2015—mean that dealing with debt is crucial. Solving that problem is of the utmost importance and we look forward to even greater achievements in the months and years to come.
  Today and on other occasions, several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to previous debates on the Bill in another place. Lord Judd said that he wanted a more definite date for the achievement of the 0.7 per cent. of gross national product target. That is not in the Bill, nor would I have expected it to be, but perhaps the time has come to make a bit of a push on that—perhaps 10 years could be the target. There is something to be said for that and, in principle, I should welcome the setting of a definite target if the opportunity arose.
  In the same debate, Lord Hughes, with his immense knowledge of South Africa, made the point that there should be stronger support for the South African Government's medicines control Act—a model of WTO-compliant but poverty-focused legislation—to increase access to medicines for the poorest people, providing a balance to a purely commercially driven policy. There is something in that. South Africa is offering us as many lessons on dealing with such matters as it did on the achievement of democracy. The country has a colossal influence on development policy in the third world, including the rest of Africa.
  In the House of Lords debate, the strong view emerged that, to make certain that globalisation helps the poor and does not increase inequalities, Britain's development policies—especially on Africa—will sometimes have to take precedence over vested interests. I know that my right hon. Friend will push that view forcefully in whichever forums she is given the opportunity to speak. Some people are concerned about Angola. That problem must be addressed, notwithstanding the other problems in Africa.
  The growing concern about the environment was reflected again today during questions on the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That is something on which the House should continue to focus.
  I end with a question to my hon. Friend the Minister. I work closely with our friends the Kurds, and I wonder whether in view of the concern that 60,000 people will be affected by the Ilisu dam, he is in a position to give us some more information about it. That would help those of us who are worried about it.
  I wish the Bill well. It is practical. It is inspiring. It offers hope to developing countries. That is welcome because disenchantment has prevailed far too often in the past.
  7.1 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Just after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, I made a speech to my party conference and reflected on the plight of the Afghan people, who were engulfed in 20 years of civil war and for three years had suffered drought and famine. It was at the same time that I talked about bombing Afghanistan with food. I was interested and relieved to see today that the World Food Programme is talking of airlifting food during the winter.
  Millions of people had been on the verge of starvation. The aid agencies warned of impending catastrophe for months, yet hardly anyone in the world was listening. In 1999–2000 the United Kingdom bilateral and multilateral aid to Afghanistan was less than £6 million. That was quite good by international standards. Between 1997 and 11 September this year, £32 million of humanitarian assistance went to Afghanistan, but that was mainly to the refugees already escaping to Pakistan and Iran.
  In my role as international development spokesman for my party, I am struck by one sad fact over and over again. International development issues catch the world's attention only when it is far too late; when the emergency occurs, it is too late. In the case of Afghanistan, we paid attention only after the horrific attack on the world's richest country on 11 September.
  Before I became a Member of Parliament I was a doctor, as many hon. Members know, and I always found that prevention was better than cure. Yet the health service still ploughs masses of money into heart surgery, brain surgery and incredible high-tech dramatic stuff, not into the unglamorous health promotion and prevention that would stop the diseases happening. How true that is, too, for international development. Prevention is the unglamorous bit; the treatment is the thing that catches the world's attention.
  We have a brilliant Department for International Development. I acknowledge that it is respected all over the world, and I have heard compliments paid to it all over the world. We have a Secretary of State who never pulls her punches, and even calls me friend on occasions, yet the United Nations target for spending on international development is 0.7 per cent. of GNP, as we all keep telling each other, and few countries have reached that target. We certainly have not. Attempts are being made, but we certainly have not got there. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, said that the United States of America of all countries could probably afford to increase substantially the proportion of GNP that it gives to development. The point was well made.
  Without a financial commitment wholeheartedly and generously funded before emergencies occur, the world can only hope to see more wars, more poverty, more famine, more refugees roaming the world—most of them women and children—and more asylum seekers struggling to escape to a better life. That is why the Bill is so important. It states clearly, although boringly at times, what we are about—reducing poverty, furthering sustainable development and improving the welfare of people all over the world. That the other place could not

  297
  pass the Bill in July amazes me, but then the antics of the Conservatives are a mystery to everyone, even the Conservatives
  Mrs. Spelman: It had run out of time.
  Dr. Tonge: Nevertheless, it could have gone through.
  The Secretary of State referred to the problem that the debate last week in the other place was almost entirely on coercive family planning in China. The general tenets of the Bill were not addressed. I disagree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). We should not let wonderful international family planning and reproductive health programmes that are helping to fight AIDs, executed by the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International—organisations all dear to my heart—be hijacked by people who have a particular and very sincere religious conviction. That is the basis of the problem.
  I have some reservations about the Bill. I refer the House to the debate in March this year when the Bill had its first Second Reading for details of those. I was most concerned then about tied aid. The Pergau dam scandal sticks in all our minds and hearts, and we will never forget it. The then Under-Secretary of State for International Development was most helpful and organised a party of civil servants from the Department for International Development and the Treasury to meet me in private and apply the thumbscrews to make sure that I fully understood the Bill. I guess that they almost convinced me that the Bill was tied aid-proof, but just in case I asked a young woman lawyer of my acquaintance, Alison Griffiths—watch that name—to approach the matter independently. She did not have a background in development. She did not listen to me first; neither did she listen to DFID or any of the debates. I quote her remarks for hon. Members' interest. She said:
  "Following this legislation, any aid which was thought to be tied could be challenged through the courts as being contrary to the spirit of the statute and therefore contrary to the intention of Parliament when the Act was passed. The intention of Parliament would be determined through 'ministerial pronouncements' and records of debates."
  I therefore was able to rest my case. I thank everyone for the efforts that they have made to convince me, but I hope that when the Minister replies we will have one more ministerial pronouncement that tied aid will never appear again in this country.
  Will the Secretary of State tell us whether her Department has had to make any promises of aid to any of the countries of the coalition supporting the action in Afghanistan and, if so, where and how it could be covered by the Bill? I discount the offers of debt relief and humanitarian relief of course, but it is important to establish who is paying, especially for debt relief to Pakistan and humanitarian aid to refugees inside and outside Afghanistan. I hope that the money is not all coming out of the budget of DFID.
  Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right to say that we were making commitments to Afghanistan, but they were not massive. We had difficulty spending our money in Afghanistan because UK nationals were targets; we were trying to build up our programme, but underspending.
  298
  I have had an extra £15 million from the Treasury in addition to my normal budget. She always asks this question. It is good to be clear.
  We have made commitments to support Pakistan's continuing reform agenda, but that is not a reward for supporting the coalition. Since its formation as a state, Pakistan has been so misgoverned, plundered and corrupted. For example, it has never completed an International Monetary Fund-World Bank programme. A major reform effort of enormous importance to a very poor country is under way, and I have made commitments that are tied to that continuing reform effort. They are not a reward for the position taken on Afghanistan, but there is a danger that Pakistan could be destabilised by the crisis in Afghanistan. That would be a tragedy because there is a serious reform effort under way.
  Dr. Tonge: I entirely agree with the Secretary of State's worries about Pakistan's being destabilised by the current action, and I thank her very much for that useful explanation.
  The other reservations about the Bill will be dealt with, yet again, in Committee, and I hope that it will soon become law. That will be a proud moment for the Secretary of State; it will be the first international development Act of Parliament since 1980, and I think that the previous Chairman of the International Development Committee said that that Act was a pretty pathetic measure. I remind the hon. Member for Meriden that 18 years of Conservative government brought none of the measures on bribery, arms control or tied aid that she suggested in her speech. None of those issues were addressed, and I am delighted by the conversion that has taken place in the Conservative party.
  Mrs. Spelman: Following that observation, I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating my former right hon. Friend, John Major, on his efforts to raise debt relief and help for poorer nations higher up the agenda.
  Dr. Tonge: Indeed, and I have acknowledged that fact in the other speeches on debt that I have made in the House.
  I should like to remind the House what the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference. While teaching the world to sing and in talking about Africa, he said that we must
  "provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt; help with good governance and infrastructure; training to the soldiers, with UN blessing, in conflict resolution; encouraging investment; and access to our markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of preaching."
  He said all those wonderful things, so we have to make further progress on debt. More money needs to go into the aid budget, and we need to reform the WTO and to have tighter export controls on arms, which will be discussed during the remaining stages of the Export Control Bill tomorrow—all of which involves doing all those things. It requires joined-up government, so that Departments act together to prevent catastrophes from happening.
  The Prime Minister went on to say:
  "But it's a deal: on the African side, true democracy",
  which the Conservatives are fond of mentioning,
  "no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of humans rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states"—

  299
  all very good stuff, but let us remember that those faults can also be found in many of the countries that form the coalition against terrorism. That is conveniently forgotten at the moment. perhaps for very good reasons, but we must be careful not to apply double standards because that will not help us achieve the development goals.
  The Prime Minister then said:
  "The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world."—
  indeed it is—
  "But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier."
  Indeed, it will become deeper and angrier, not just in Africa, and my children and grandchildren will reap the harvest. Let us hope that that was not just an attack of self-righteousness on his part, but a genuine change of direction, which will put the Bill and international development at the top of agenda for the rest of this Parliament.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. John Battle: In introducing the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quoted the fact that the world population is now 6 billion, of whom 1.2 billion live in extreme poverty and 2.8 billion—almost half—live on less than $2 a day, but we sometimes become phased by the scale of the challenge and we lose perspective, so I should like to express the challenge in other terms. If we were to shrink the world to just 100 people, there would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 north or south Americans and 8 Africans. Some 70 of those people would be illiterate, 80 would live in substandard housing, one person would own a computer and just six people—all Americans—would possess 59 per cent. of the world's wealth, and 50 would suffer from serious malnutrition.
  In considering those 100 people, I concur with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). Indeed, the Prime Minister, in his initiative, has insisted that if we do not include those eight Africans within our globe, we shall simply stack up problems for the future, and conflicts elsewhere will come right into the hearts of our neighbourhoods—it is a very small world these days. Our globe seems smaller and is more interrelated and vulnerable than perhaps we realised before 11 September, but we all now know that.
  I shall repeat some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who referred to the "State of the World's Children 2002". That report said that child malnutrition rates decreased by 17 per cent. during the previous decade, but the figure was only 17 per cent.—the target was 50 per cent. In sub-Saharan Africa, the absolute number of malnourished children increased and life expectancy at birth is now 47 years. Lives are shorter, not longer than they were in 1980, and the figure is going in the wrong direction compared with a life expectancy of about 78 years in rest of the world.
  In all the World Bank's scenarios, which were published early in the spring of this year, the number of people living in poverty in Africa was estimated to increase by 2015—the crucial target date for the UN's international development goals. In other words, the needs
  300
  of the people of Africa are massively increasing. I simply suggest that sometimes aid inevitably follows the latest crisis, and as our attention inevitably turns to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the whole of that region, it is important to do our best to keep a focus on the increasing needs of Africa so that they are not lost from the agenda.
  I welcome this straightforward but rather limited Bill. Its purpose is clearly defined as ensuring that development assistance is focused on reducing poverty, which is absolutely welcome. The Government have made excellent progress in international development. The Prime Minister stressed international justice and launched a new Africa initiative. At the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the Chancellor stressed the need to address poverty reduction internationally, and he has campaigned on debt. The Secretary of State is now known internationally as a champion of international development.
  In December, the Department for International Development published the paper, "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor". I had the privilege to represent the Government in south-east Asian countries at that time, and the document received universal acclaim from poor countries who described it as groundbreaking because it set an agenda for the 21st century. The words are in place; we now have to turn them into action.
  The Bill is part of that process. Rather than defining the scope of development, it deals specifically with the authority to spend, and I want to focus on that. Some 25 per cent. of the Department's spending is through the European Union and the Commission. I was involved in such matters 25 years ago when the, European Court of Auditors described the spending of DGVIII, the development Directorate-General in the late 1970s and early 1980s as having weaknesses and shortcomings. That description appears in reports today. So the European Commission has not made much progress 25 years on in reforming the management of aid programmes. That becomes a greater and more urgent challenge with enlargement. The European Union needs to get a grip on those programmes, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend's Department will play a role in that.
  I also put down a marker on the need to reform the institutions of the United Nations. In addition to political reform of the Security Council, we need to reform its management of programmes. We need constantly to review and assess how they are performing. People often shout for UN help, but we need to consider the systems by which it delivers.
  Clare Short: Nothing can replace the UN; it is very important. It has moral legitimacy and represents the whole world. However, many of its institutions are inefficient. We have published a series of strategies for each UN agency that we fund on how the reform agenda must progress. We are using the leverage of our resources to help drive that forward. It is important to achieve that.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. In the same way as we have given leadership in respect of the principles of international development, that leadership is crucial in their implementation, whether in EU or UN organisations.
  Clause 6(3) deals with shareholder power, and I was grateful for my right hon. Friend's illumination of what that new power might entail. It is an imaginative instrument.

  301
  Opposition Members referred to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and I, too, am worried that it has become a venture capital organisation that has lost its focus on poverty. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend says absolutely not. Can we keep an eye on it as we keep an eye on the UN and the Commission? We need to watch how it is used, because it is an important instrument.
  Clause 4(2) relates to development education, which is becoming more important. It might sound surprising, but it is amazing how many people now know where Afghanistan is and could say that Pakistan is its neighbour. A few weeks ago, they would not have known that basic geography. There is a thirst and hunger for information about the corners of our globe that have been neglected. The network of development education centres that work with schools is a good template, but they need support. I encourage my right hon. Friend to do all that she can to ensure that they receive a solid underpinning.
  Let us take that idea a stage further and consider not only attaching development education to school curriculums, with the help of the Department for Education and Skills. but building it into adult and further education. Adult education centres, colleges and institutions, including those in my constituency, which offer a range of courses such as languages, computer skills and hobbies could also offer development education. There is a need for that information because they cannot get it from a few short news bulletins on the radio and television.
  It is vital to keep development spending at the top of the agenda. We need international support for it and for development programmes. The Bill is about the authority to spend. Development education could encourage discussions on larger portmanteau terms, such as sustainable development and poverty. There is a welcome debate to be had on what we mean by poverty. We could refer to Amartya Sen's ideas on poverty, such as capabilities and functioning, or to the human development approach. The debate could include a discussion on whether sustainable development relates only to environment or whether it has a more holistic approach. I like the Kenyan proverb on sustainable development which says that we do not inherit the world from our parents; we have only got it on loan for our children. The link through the generations can also be built into development education. We need to get support for more practical commitment.
  The Bill's power is the authority to spend. The percentage of gross national product spent by the Government on development assistance is encouraging. The trend of cuts has been reversed. Between 1979 and 1997 we were well below the commitment to 0.7 per cent. Indeed, we constantly moved away from it. Had we continued the spending trend of the percentage of GNP that the Conservative Government inherited in 1979, we would be much closer to that target. Instead. however, we have 20 years to make up. I hope that my right hon. Friend knows that she has support in the House and the country as a whole to campaign to increase that proportion. The Dutch Government recently legislated that aid will be 0.8 per cent. of GNP. We hear much about the 2015 international development targets, but can we set firm mid-term goals for reaching that GNP target?
  I mentioned in my caricature of a shrunken world the six Americans who would own a large amount of the world's wealth. Tables for development assistance show that the United States is a substantial donor, second only
  302
  to Japan, giving $9.58 billion. We give about $4.5 billion. However, in percentage terms, the United States gives only 0.1 per cent. of its gross domestic product. If it doubled that, it would be a massive increase. Perhaps by making an effort to increase our percentage we could encourage the United States to do the same. The percentage of 0.7 per cent. should remain the target figure. It is important and adds bite to the words and intentions, and enables us to carry the programmes forward.
  Development is about tackling global poverty by moving from tied aid to poverty reduction, and that is most welcome. In the 1960s we had the UN decade to increase growth by 5 per cent. In the 1970s the target was set at 0.7 per cent. Neither of those were reached. In the first decade of this millennium we have the White Paper and the Bill. They should allow us to shift the debate to a higher plain and to canvass more support. International development is a centre-stage concern. Despite emerging crises, it could remain there, but we need to deepen and broaden the debate. We do not want it to be a technical debate; rather, we want it to receive public support. We can get wider support in Britain's poorer communities which understand that our world is interlinked. Our sign of serious intent is that we will put positive programmes into practice, as well as issuing policy statements.
  It was encouraging that 24 million people from all walks of life around the world signed up to the Jubilee 2000 campaign. People have good spirits and good hearts, and are taking international development seriously. Perhaps the Bill, with its development assistance, is a step towards genuine development co-operation in the 21st century.
  7.30 pm
  Tony Baldry: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), a colleague on the International Development Committee, who made a powerful speech. I agreed with everything that he said. His caricature of the shrunken world was very effective, and the statistics that he gave on that world were particularly powerful.
  The Bill seeks to signal that this country's international development budget is targeted at reducing poverty and is not intended to be a subsidy to UK exporters or UK businesses overseas. No one can dispute the urgency with which we need collectively to tackle poverty, and that urgency, I am sure, is shared by everyone in the Chamber, by Ministers and Opposition spokesmen alike and by every member of the Select Committee, which I am fortunate to chair. No amount of statistics can adequately portray the grinding, persistent poverty that so many fellow human beings have to endure. This September, I was fortunate enough to go to Burkina Faso as part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. I was struck by the exhaustion felt by so many people who are permanently on the margins of survival. It is sometimes difficult for us to imagine what that must be like.
  Last Friday, the Financial Times observed in its editorial that
  "the events of 11 September have triggered new thinking about aid for developing countries. Greater attention is being paid to those calling for more support from the developed world. The benefits of reducing poverty and antagonism towards the West have become clearer since the attacks on New York and Washington."

  303
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) was slightly pessimistic. We now have an unprecedented opportunity to impress on decision makers throughout the world the importance of international development.
  An article in The Observer last Sunday commented rather starkly that
  "the United States is hated by poor nations because they believe the world super power manipulates global trade rules and imprisons them in debt. Europe with its huge subsidies to farmers and its tight protected markets is little better in their eyes."
  That is an overstatement, but it is certainly true that we all inhabit one world, in which we are all interdependent, and there is a moral duty on those who have to help those who have not.
  The Bill, in addition to authorising development aid, enables the Government to allocate funds for humanitarian help. At present, considerable collective thought and much media attention is rightly being devoted to the desperate humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. There are two important points that, in our natural and understandable concern for our fellow human beings, we should not overlook. In this, I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke).
  First, the UN Secretary-General declared as long ago as June that Afghanistan was the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The international community has been aware since the summer that some 5 million people in Afghanistan would be in difficulties this winter because of continuing conflict and persistent drought. As various NGOs have explained, they would have expected a huge crisis in Afghanistan this winter even if the events of 11 September had not occurred.
  Secondly, no one wants conflict, but such conflict as is taking place in Afghanistan would be avoidable if the Taliban simply complied with their obligations to the United Nations and with the resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, going back as far as 1999, which require them to hand over Osama bin Laden for trial. As the Secretary of State said, it behoves us all to uphold the moral authority of the United Nations. As a permanent member of the Security Council, this country has a particular duty to do so, and Parliament has a particular duty to support the Government in discharging that duty.
  Another important part of Parliament's work is to ensure that the reality of Government action matches the rhetoric of promises made by Governments in the spotlight of major international summits and conferences. For example, wealthy countries have promised to ensure that developing countries achieve the target of universal primary education by 2015. That pledge is clear and unambiguous.
  At the G8 meeting in Okinawa last year, the communiqué stated:
  "no countries seriously committed to education for all will be thwarted in their achievements of this goal by lack of resources."
  Parliamentarians, particularly those from G8 countries, have a duty to ensure that their Governments match reality to rhetoric because, despite the pledge, there seems to be little progress in ensuring that there is a global initiative to get all the world's children into schools. Today,
  304
  125 million primary school-age children are not enrolled in school. Limited debt relief, inadequate aid and the failure of many countries to prioritise education are all barriers keeping children out of school.
  Even where there has been debt relief, it has not gone far enough. Of the first 22 countries to receive debt relief, more than half will spend more servicing their debts this year than they will spend on basic education. It is estimated that achieving universal primary education in those countries will cost $1.5 billion a year, yet they will spend a combined $1.8 billion servicing their debts in 2001. The world's neediest countries need deeper debt relief. We must fulfil promises made on debt relief.
  We had an interesting and detailed debate on debt last week in Westminster Hall, in which the Financial Secretary made clear the Government's commitment to the heavily indebted poor countries, or HIPC, initiative. Over the weekend, I was re-reading the Financial Secretary's remarks in Hansard. He gave a fair and accurate account of the HIPC process to date. It was less clear whether the Government considered such progress adequate and, if more were needed, what must be achieved and how. He tantalisingly told the House that the Government "want to go faster" and said:
  "We could do more and are determined to do so".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 1 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 318WH.] However, he did not tell us what more they could do, where they could do it or how much faster they could do it.
  We need clear, acknowledged milestones by which we can judge progress on debt relief initiatives, not just by the number of countries that benefit from debt relief, but by the extent to which they are doing so. This week, a parliamentary delegation from the Philippines has been visiting Westminster, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, observed following a statement to the House this afternoon. On Monday evening, the President of the Senate in the Philippines, in a speech in Speaker's House, said that we need to stand shoulder to shoulder against international terrorism, but we also need to stand shoulder to shoulder against poverty.
  The world's poorest countries need more aid. Between 1990 and 2000, aid from G7 nations fell, and overall is still falling. On average, G7 countries give only 0.19 per cent. of GDP to development aid—a pathetic amount. Indeed, every G7 country, with the exception, I am glad to say, of the UK, is now giving less development aid than it was a decade ago. It is fair to observe that the latest report by the development assistance committee of the OECD shows that, in volume, the UK is now the fourth-largest aid donor in the world and, for the first time for 40 years, is ahead of France.
  However, as several hon. Members have commented, the DAC report also shows that the United States gives only 0.1 per cent. of gross national income in development aid. Collectively, we must work out how we can engage fellow legislators in the United States and persuade them that it is in the United States' interests to help to lift countries out of poverty. As the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, even if the United States simply doubled the percentage of GNI that goes to development aid, a substantial difference would be made to the total amount. Overall, the decline in aid from the international community seriously overshadows the modest extra sums that have been freed for poorer countries through the HIPC initiative.
  The universal declaration of human rights could not be clearer. It states:
  "Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages",
  but for millions of children that is an empty pledge. For them, access to education is not a human right, but an unaffordable privilege as parents face a multitude of fees, levies and payments. Let me give a simple, human illustration. In Burkina Faso, we met many street children—as one would in any poor country. When I asked why they were trying to raise money, many gave the interesting reply that they wanted to be able to pay their school fees. I do not think that they were dissembling; their answers were perfectly straightforward.
  We must ensure that aid goes to those who need it most, because it does not always do so. I speak as one who in my party is known to be, to put it crudely, pro-European. The Bill does not cover the large sums of Department for International Development money that go to the European Commission as this country's contribution to European Union aid. Of that aid, the Commission allocates three times more to education in central and eastern Europe than to education in poor countries. That is not sustainable development. The issue must be systematically examined by Parliament. If the EU wants to give structural funds to accession countries hoping to enter the EU, a budget separate from the EU aid budget should be established.
  What needs to be achieved is clear and straightforward, requiring no further meetings of the great and the good, and no further resolutions or promises. It simply requires countries to start delivering what they have already promised and agreed for the benefit of the world's children. As the Secretary of State said to me at the last International Development questions:
  "We do not need more and more conferences and meetings across the world. We need to implement what we have already agreed."—[Official Report, 24 October 2001: Vol. 373, c. 267.]
  I entirely agree.
  A further example of the need for Governments and the international community to deliver is the promises made at the 1995 world summit for social development in Copenhagen. The Secretary of State has stated her belief that the 2015 targets on poverty reduction will be met. I look forward to reading the detail of the letter on the subject that she sent me. We all agree that it is essential that we succeed in meeting those targets, but omens indicate that doing so will be difficult. Causes of concern include the fact that poverty in south Asia is falling at only half the rate needed to achieve the 2015 target.
  At the 1995 world summit, Governments pledged to cut child death rates by two thirds by 2015. In fact, child mortality is falling at less than half the rate required to achieve that target. That is not some hypothetical future crisis: if today, Governments collectively were on track to meet the 2015 target, 1.7 million fewer children would die this year alone. I know that it is difficult to get one's head around such huge figures, but the deaths of those children are avoidable.
  The crisis is especially stark in Africa. If current trends continue, almost 5 million children will die in Africa in 2015 alone—a terrifying and chilling but accurate statistic. The tragedy is that the world does not lack the resources needed to prevent children from dying unnecessarily, or failing to get into school and so not
  306
  getting an education. What the world appears to lack is the leadership and the political will needed to translate commitments already made into positive action.
  International development should include the encouragement of trade as well as the delivery of aid. Oxfam argues, rightly, that trade has
  "the potential to act as a powerful motor of poverty reduction."
  Oxfam calculates that every tiny 0.7 per cent. increase in exports from a developing country generates as much income as it receives each year in aid.
  Decisions at the WTO conference at Doha will be important. The position was stated simply by the Financial Times in its editorial last Friday:
  "Industrial countries must not forget the importance of their trade barriers in hindering progress in developing countries. The best signal that could be given to the poor would be a commitment at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha to tear down trade barriers in agriculture, basic goods and services."
  Strong stuff from the Financial Times.
  The poor are often doubly handicapped in the board game of world trade. Often, the dice are loaded against them. To export, they have to do the equivalent of throwing a double six because of high tariffs set against them; and often they cannot get on to the board to compete at all because of subsidised food and commodities being dumped on their doorstep. We must remember that three quarters of the poorest people in the world live in rural areas and are largely dependent on agriculture.
  I wish the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry every success at Doha. I listened carefully to what she had to say today, and I hope that on her return she will be able to tell the House that Doha was a success, but I fear that the omens are not good. The least developed countries group met last week in Geneva and expressed concern that none of its input was getting through to the Doha draft declaration. Perhaps proving the point that too little listening is taking place, Stuart Harbison, chairman of the WTO' s general council, stated that in any event the draft declaration was now final.
  As well as concerns about agriculture and dumping—whether it be the US dumping cheap steel abroad, or Europe dumping cheap sugar abroad—there is an on-going dispute about the developing world's lack of access to cheap medicines. The issues are complex, but the statistics are stark: tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS kill 5 million people each year, most in developing countries.
  If we are not going to get agreement in the short term on relaxing TRIPS, we have to make sure that the global health fund is well funded, that it works, that it is operational as soon as possible, that countries—especially those with profitable pharmaceuticals industries—make worthwhile contributions and that we persuade pharmaceuticals companies to become involved and make an appropriate contribution. I acknowledge that the Government have given $200 million to the fund, but it must not be a one-off donation. The UK, which has a large and sophisticated pharmaceuticals industry, should be willing to give additional sums in due course.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether that $200 million is in addition to projected spending by the Department for International Development? Does he agree that it must be truly additional if it is to have the effect that he wants?
  Tony Baldry: It is one of the characteristics of international development debates that those who

  307
  participate collectively exhort International Development Ministers to try to extract as much money as possible from their Treasury colleagues.
  One of the useful aspects of the initiatives on debt is that the International Development Committee has, on occasion, been able to bring the Chancellor before it to talk about international development. There is no doubt that the current Chancellor, like his predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is genuinely interested and keen to see what he can do in respect of international development. One must hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is always as helpful and forthcoming.
  Everything that we have discussed this evening requires a constant commitment to sustainable development, and clause 9 includes such a commitment. Interestingly, tomorrow the House will deal with the remaining stages of the Export Control Bill, in which the Government say that they cannot define sustainable development. Today, however, they can define sustainable development in the International Development Bill, which is slightly puzzling.
  Of course it is right that our development budget focuses on the poor of the world and that that commitment is underpinned by legislation. The test of success, however, will not be the words of the Bill; it will be whether the international community collectively delivers on international obligations that are already in place.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber, I congratulate her on the work that she has done so far and on her down-to-earth businesslike manner. She has given evidence to the Select Committee on International Development on many occasions, and I can confirm that the relationship between Ministers and the Committee is reasonably good.
  As a member of the Select Committee, I have seen for myself the importance of the work done by the Department and have witnessed at first hand the terrible living conditions in African countries, in the Indian subcontinent and, this year on a visit with the Committee, in Vietnam and Cambodia. The Department's work seems to increase day by day, especially in light of the attacks on 11 September. It is now working hard to deliver aid to the people of Afghanistan, despite the obstacles created by the Taliban, both before and during the current bombing campaign. All sorts of difficulties are being created to obstruct the delivery of aid in Afghanistan.
  Recent events have created both short-term challenges and long-term opportunities for the Department and other donors. Western nations have now begun to reassess the security implications of providing aid as a means of reducing resentment in developing countries. Reducing poverty may not completely eliminate the threat from fundamentalists such as Osama bin Laden who, after all, comes from a comfortable Saudi background and is a rich man, but it will address the squalid conditions that can act as a breeding ground for those whom the terrorist leaders exploit as their foot soldiers. We have recently seen that followers of bin Laden are indoctrinating young Muslims to fight for Islam.
  308
  The new interest in aid needs to be directed wisely and correct decisions have to be made; the Bill consolidates the ability of the Secretary of State to ensure that that is done. The World Bank's yearly report, released this month, says that the long-term prospects of developing countries could be boosted significantly by removing barriers to trade. Its economists suggest that over the 10 years following liberalisation, world income could increase by as much as $2.8 trillion, with more than half those gains going to developing countries; that could result in 300 million more people being lifted out of poverty by 2015, in addition to the 600 million who would escape abject poverty as a result of normal growth. That forecast may be over-ambitious, but rich countries should be willing to dismantle the barriers that adversely affect developing countries, including subsidies, especially in agriculture, and high tariffs on selected products.
  By addressing such issues, we can overcome what Patricio Aylwin, former President of Chile, last week told the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations was the "tragic failure" to reduce poverty. He said that the reasons for that failure are a lack of political commitment from richer countries, the failure of developing countries to help their own poor, and the wrong economic approaches. Recently, globalisation has become a controversial concept; we must work harder to make it work for the poor. Supporters of globalisation have to convince members of the anti lobby, some of whom are genuinely concerned about the effects of globalisation on developing and poor countries.
  The events of 11 September may have reinvigorated the debate on aid, but they have also created dangers. For example, aid may now be granted on the ground of political expediency, rather than effectiveness in reducing poverty. In its rush to consolidate the coalition against terrorists, the west may be tempted to turn a blind eye to Government failures. The suggestion of generous debt relief for Pakistan—considered a key ally by the United States in the current campaign—from the Paris Club of governmental creditors is a cause for concern.
  I urge the Secretary of State to use the discretionary powers granted to her in the Bill to ensure that this country rewards genuine efforts to reduce poverty. Alongside recognition for effective policies pursued by the Governments of developing nations, international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank should be allowed to act on their professional judgment, not on the political goals of their shareholders. For example, the IMF should not be pressured into relaxing its strict conditions for loans. That principle should also apply to bilateral aid. If a recipient knows that it has been guaranteed aid regardless of its actions, that can have the effect of creating a moral hazard.
  In these increasingly difficult economic times, it is essential that we do not sideline international development. With countries across the globe sliding towards recession, and the already faltering United States economy being rocked further by the 11 September disaster, western nations may be tempted to lose interest in the near future. I hope that the Secretary of State will use the influence granted by the Bill to ensure that that does not happen. As has already been demonstrated in the USA under former President Bill Clinton, rich countries can be reluctant to reduce trade barriers, even in

  309
  prosperous times. During a recession, they are more likely to want to erect barriers against the perceived threats to their industries.
  I urge the Secretary of State to encourage developing countries to focus on effective, achievable measures and to keep their eye on the ball. At its meeting in July this year, the former Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union, made a distracting effort to relaunch itself with a single Parliament and currency—an absurd idea in a continent racked by war and famine. Attention should be focused on reducing poverty, not grandiose schemes that are currently unworkable.
  It is in our power to make life better for hundreds of millions of people all over the world. However, we must make the right decisions and be willing to see our efforts through to the end. Current political circumstances present a challenge to the world's democracies. I am sure that the Secretary of State and her Department will face up to it. As my right hon. Friend continues her good work, I wish her every success in helping the world's poor and needy. I support the Bill.
  8 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: In a debate on the international development White Paper on 3 May, I said:
  "This is a very important debate on a vital issue, and it is a wake-up call. If we in the west do not take more interest at the highest political level, we will reap the whirlwind".—[Official Report, 3 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 1070]
  I was thinking of possible events in the coming decades; I did not think that we would reap the whirlwind so quickly. We face a crisis of terrorism in the world because poverty breeds fundamentalism, which breeds terrorism.
  I want to repeat what I have said on several occasions in the House. It is vital that all of us—not only from left-wing but from Conservative traditions—articulate the point that the huge divide in living standards between the developed and the less developed world is one of the most important issues for the developed world. Those of us from a Conservative tradition must argue as strongly for, and be as committed to, the cause as those who speak from the left-wing tradition. It is therefore important for Conservatives to take an active interest in the debate.
  The debate is rare because many of us can identify with much of what has been said by hon. Members of all parties. There is not much of a political divide so far. I want not simply to repeat what has already been said, but to deal with a special concern. I am as committed as anyone to reducing world poverty and to the Bill becoming law, but I have a particular anxiety, which I have expressed over many years in Adjournment debates, letters to high commissioners and heads of Government throughout the world, about human rights abuses, especially those based on religious persecution.
  I asked the Secretary of State a question at the beginning of the debate because I wanted her to have an opportunity to tell the House that, in her anxiety about poverty, she acknowledged that human rights abuses and bad governance are often a root cause of it. I was pleased with her answer. She is a good Minister and when a Member of Parliament, even an Opposition Member, asks her a question, she tries to answer it. That is rather rare.
  The Secretary of State did not say everything that I wanted her to say, but she made the important point that the world's poorest people often come from religious and
  310
  ethnic minorities. However, she did not take the next step. Perhaps I am being unfair, and the Minister can answer my question when he winds up the debate, but the Secretary of State did not go as far as I would have liked and say, "When I or my Ministers make decisions on aid, good governance and the persecution of minorities are always at the forefront of our minds." I hope that they are, because I believe that that is vital.
  I want to illustrate my point with three countries: Vietnam, Egypt and Burma. In a parliamentary answer on 4 March, the former Under-Secretary at the Department for International Development stated that the United Kingdom gave more than £5 million a year to Vietnam, and that the sum was
  "scheduled to increase significantly over the next three years, in recognition of the Vietnamese Government's commitment to poverty reduction and social equity. Rural development is the Government's highest priority for donor support."—[Official Report, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 1009W.]
  However, Vietnam has an appalling human rights record.
  I shall give one example. The Montagnard people of the central highlands of Vietnam are being persecuted. Members of that minority are being deported, arrested and tortured. I should be amazed if any of the £5 million aid that we give to Vietnam goes anywhere near the Montagnard people. Peaceful protests have been broken up. The persecution of an indigenous hill tribe is happening in a country that we support.
  The Montagnard Foundation, a human rights organisation, reports:
  "Today the devastation continues and we are faced with continued and sustained policies that exploit our homelands and persecute our race through forced assimilation, human rights violations and genocide enacted by the current Vietnamese government."
  I leave my argument for the Minister to consider. When we give £5 million to Vietnam, what steps do we take to remind the Vietnamese Government, if they need reminding, of the cruel persecution that they visit on some of their population? Do we use aid as a lever? I doubt it, but I should be delighted to hear from the Minister if I am wrong.
  I could take examples from many countries throughout the world, but let us consider Egypt, which is quite a good example because it is relatively well governed. In a parliamentary answer on 25 April, the former Under-Secretary stated:
  "Our budget for bilateral assistance to Egypt was –4 million in 2000–01 and is set to remain at this level in 2000–02".—[Official Report, 25 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 297W.]
  We therefore give considerable aid to Egypt. Outright persecution or genocide is not happening there, but there is unacceptable discrimination against a religious minority—the Copts.
  The Spectator states:
  "Things are difficult for Christians here now. In Upper Egypt their houses are burned and they are sometimes attacked. In Cairo the other day three Copts were shot dead. Christians die because they are Christians: the third century is back. And yet we are in a country which still feels entirely stable despite the terrorism, and where passers-by call out 'Welcome' to foreigners."
  I choose the example of a country that is an ally to some extent, and which has a relatively moderate Government. The Government do not persecute the Copts, but there is unacceptable discrimination in, for example, employment.

  311
  There is a well documented case that proves that the Egyptian Government are not doing enough to protect this minority in their homeland. Egypt is very different from Vietnam and Burma. but are the Government using the £4 million or 5 million that they give to Egypt every year as leverage? Do they raise such issues with the Egyptian Government?
  I have raised the subject of Burma in Adjournment debates and at Question Time. It is a shocking example of human rights abuses. We are considering what must be described as the genocide of the Karen people and Shan people in eastern Burma. There are appalling tales of thousands of internally displaced people and of brutal actions by the Burmese Government. What should the UK Government do? Should they say to the Burmese Government, "You are so appalling and brutal that we will give you no aid," and thus lose all leverage? Or should they try to direct resources and aid to those who are being persecuted by that Government? To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who leads for the Opposition: I do not think that we need to give aid to the central Burmese Government, but I think that we can help the people who are being persecuted. To be fair to this Government, I acknowledge that they are giving humanitarian aid to these people, but the amounts of money concerned are relatively small, given the sheer scale of the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Burma.
  Those are three examples, and I shall leave the matter there. This is a subject about which I feel very strongly. We must be committed to reducing world poverty, but unless we have the moral courage to insist, as we hand out aid, on good governance, on respect for human rights, and on a determination that religious minorities shall not be persecuted, we are going to lose a powerful mechanism for improving the lot of minorities all over the world. I hope that when the Bill becomes law, and when our whole focus is on reducing poverty, we will always bear in mind the fact that poverty exists in so many areas of the world not for historical reasons, and not just for economic reasons, but because these countries are plagued by brutal and corrupt Governments.
  8.11 pm
  Ann McKechin: I strongly support the Bill, which consolidates the Government's policy to ensure that our aid budget is poverty-focused and dedicated to reaching the international development targets. The Government's announcement of their intention to end the practice of tied aid is to be commended as a strong signal of our commitment to offer genuine assistance in a spirit of partnership with the developing world, rather than imposing a top-down solution, often with inappropriate and wasteful aid.
  A cynic once observed to me that the level of the UK aid budget before 1997 bore an uncanny resemblance to the amount spent on the purchase of Hawk jets by the recipient countries. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned, many of us well remember the scandal of the Pergau dam case under the Tory Administration, in which aid funds were provided in return for a construction contract that had no economic benefit to the poor of that country. The World Bank has
  312
  estimated that tying aid reduces the real value of aid by 25 per cent., and the termination of the scheme will allow the Department for International Development to use its funds more effectively and fully.
  Since 1997, there has been a shift in Government policy towards co-ordinating the work of all Departments involved in international affairs as well as the Department for International Development—be it the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Treasury—with our international poverty reduction and social justice aims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development have taken a leading role at World Bank, International Monetary Fund and G8 meetings, particularly in expressing the need for a comprehensive and effective debt relief programme.
  Only last week, The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, speaking on the forthcoming World Trade Organisation talks in Doha, stated:
  "The round must benefit all developing countries—the smaller ones not just the larger countries. We must agree rules which genuinely reflect their different levels of development."
  I am delighted that the Government recognise that the issues regarding our trade policy are integral to the aim of poverty reduction. I acknowledge that the UK has played a leading role in ensuring that developing countries can participate in the World Trade Organisation as equal members. I particularly welcome the announcement that the Department for International Development has doubled the budget for investment in capacity building from £15 million to £30 million over the next three years.
  But there is frankly still no level playing field in our global systems of trade. The poorest developing countries are expected to compete on equal terms with countries that operated for years behind protectionism while they industrialised. The liberalisation theory adopted by the World Trade Organisation is based on notions of supply and demand, in which consumers and suppliers negotiate a fair price in the marketplace, but that theory ignores the reality of the poorest people in, say, sub-Saharan Africa who have nothing to offer in the world marketplace.
  The theory of trade liberalisation lies at the heart of the problem with an organisation such as the WTO. This is an economic model designed to maximise growth; only later did we develop the notion that poverty could be reduced by the trickle-down of economic growth. Achieving economic, gender or racial equality is well beyond the realms of the theory's own objectives. Certain services, such as the supply of clean water or education, can be seen as a right whether an individual can afford to purchase them or not. Companies will not be prepared to provide such services free; only Governments can do that. However, the notions of rights and democratic decision making are not an integral part of the theory.
  We need to show in the current negotiations that all our international bodies are committed to poverty reduction as a principal policy aim. Even the World Bank and IMF have belatedly found themselves required to address this issue when justifying their policies, although there is still a long way to go in linking the new-style rhetoric of the poverty reduction strategy papers to the circumstances on the ground. As yet, the WTO has still to embrace a specific aim to reduce poverty; that needs to be the core of this week's talks if we wish to create true global security.
  As I said earlier today in an intervention on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Department for International Development should, as a first step,

  313
  ensure that the Government require the WTO to carry out an independent impact assessment of the general agreement on trade in services treaty before there is further liberalisation. Such an assessment has been promised but not delivered. The poor of the world are entitled to see proof of the benefits of the current settlement before any further liberalisation is agreed.
  If we in the European Union are to prove that we are serious about development, we must open up our agricultural markets and substantially cut the subsidies. I am pleased to see that the Government recognise that problem.
  As I have said, the Department for International Development has recognised that more needs to be done to assist the developing countries' capacity to negotiate at the WTO talks this week but, sadly, the agenda is still set by the northern hemisphere. I was disappointed to read in The Guardian yesterday that the current draft agenda was set behind closed doors in a couple of meetings attended by only 21 of the 142 member countries, a pattern which was set in previous trade rounds and continues despite the fact that that—not the demonstrations going on outside—was the principal reason behind the collapse of the Seattle talks in 1999. This practice has caused the exclusion of the majority of WTO members from the all important agenda setting.
  Too much influence still rests with the powerful multinational lobbyists who surround the WTO headquarters in Geneva and who continually seek to control the trade agenda. If we truly wish future negotiations to be transparent and democratic, they must be tailored to suit the capacity of those least able to take part. It is frankly disgraceful that 28 developing member countries have no representative at Geneva, and that many more have only one representative to cover up to 40 meetings a week. That is completely inadequate.
  I call for greater consideration to be given to the need effectively to regulate multinational companies to ensure that sustainable development and true poverty reduction can be achieved. The world needs international trade rules, but to date they have favoured the narrow commercial interests of the north and of the largest corporations at the expense of the wider public interest and smaller economic enterprises. If we are to have a comprehensive settlement, we also need to consider an effective multilateral agreement on labour rights under the leadership of the International Labour Organisation, and recognition of the need for environmental controls.
  We stand now at an important crossroads. We can either retain the status quo and risk greater economic insecurity and income disparity in the south, or take the more difficult choices to provide equity, sustainability and poverty eradication.
  It should be remembered that the very poorest countries account for only a tiny proportion of foreign investment and, amazingly, they receive only a disproportionately small amount of aid. The European Union aid budget has been mentioned today. In the last few years, that has given less aid, rather than more, to the poorest countries. Opening rich countries' markets, although welcome, will be of limited value in the short and medium term, given that these countries account for less than 1 per cent. of world trade.
  It is essential that we consider our poverty reduction strategy on a country-by-country basis and take into account the extent and depth of poverty that apply. As my
  314
  hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, more emphasis should be placed on increasing domestic and regional trade, rather than being principally on an export market directed at the northern hemisphere.
  Urgent assistance needs to be given to the estimated 71 countries that suffer from unsustainable debts to allow them to provide basic services to their citizens and, just as importantly, to enable them to develop the economic infrastructure necessary to compete in the open market.
  Only 23 countries qualify under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and, to date, only 6 per cent. of their debt has been wiped off. That is disgraceful. We must be prepared to consider ever more radical and quicker debt relief if we are to have any chance of meeting our international development targets.
  If we truly wish to eradicate poverty from the world, we in the northern hemisphere must be prepared to make real changes to our lives. If we want the next generation to benefit from a safer world, we must make those changes now.
  8.21 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), who put her finger on an important aspect when she spoke about agenda setting. Some of us have now discovered that those who set the agenda have already predetermined the outcome. It is therefore important that the agenda should be set for the benefit not just of the donor but of the countries that need help.

  I welcome the opportunity to give a Northern Ireland voice in this debate. It was said earlier that the poor are the most oppressed. It is fascinating that, per capita, the people of Northern Ireland, with a gross domestic product of about 80 per cent. that of the UK as a whole, will give more pro rata than the UK in international care and in charitable donations. Against that background, I shall press the Government to do more, although I support the principle behind the Bill.
  Like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I was privileged this morning to meet in political discussions a delegation from the Philippines. I was fascinated to hear again the message that had been sent forth the previous evening about poverty. Mindanao, one of the least developed islands of the Philippines, desperately needs development because the young people—indigenous people as well as those of the Muslim community—are now prey to recruitment to world terrorism. The delegation made a plea that we help them to alter the infrastructure to improve development there. We were also told that, although the Philippines produces some delightful fruit, which by the time it reaches European markets is extremely expensive, the producers receive very little for their work. We must try to change the pattern of trade and marketing to help those who could be helping themselves.
  Overseas development is a reserved matter. The Bill refers specifically to details relating to Scotland and Wales and says that there is a requirement to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Why not the Northern Ireland Assembly? Has it no role to play, or no authority to encourage people to work internationally? Schedule 1 contains a clear reference to health authorities and other bodies. Over the

  315
  years, our health authorities have sought to improve the quality of life in developing countries. Why does not the Northern Ireland Executive, to whom such powers are now devolved, have the same mention?
  I have a high regard for the Secretary of State, with her concern for world development and the poor. I pressed her earlier on the question of targets that are not met. I am often asked by people in Northern Ireland why we have still not met the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. If one examines this country's budget over the years, one sees that the contingency fund was able to deal with issues that arose, but we were not able to increase our aid budget to meet the target that had been set.
  Governments have a tendency to use international development money to promote their own political agendas. That struck us forcefully in Northern Ireland when American international aid, which should be used primarily to help developing countries, was used for political purposes by President Reagan to give us the International Fund for Ireland as a testimonial gift to Tip O'Neill, who was retiring as Speaker of Congress.
  Developed nations must start to be more responsible and not look after themselves alone. Given this nation's Christian heritage, we should give more consideration not to self-interest but to the interest of those really in need. The Master said that the poor would be always with us. That is one of the issues that I was trying to tease out with the Secretary of State. There has been no appreciable change in the number of people throughout the world who live below the poverty line. In 1987, the target was $1 and in 1998, 1.2 million people were still living in extreme poverty on $1 a day. Simple mathematics shows that $1 went further in 1987 than it did in 1998, and it certainly goes even less far today. We must be more upfront in dealing with these issues.
  Many points have already been dealt with and I do not want to repeat them for the sake of it. However, I wish to draw attention to one issue. In politics, and in some other spheres of life, we have a marvellous ability to use language to conceal rather than reveal. In relation to this Bill, I have seen a reference to the need to measure the development of reproductive health services
  "for all individuals of appropriate ages."
  What is the real purpose of reproductive health services? I thought that it was to assist in the production of new children. Sometimes, however, both in the United Kingdom and internationally, we seem to use the term in discussing how to ensure that children are not born.
  For 50 years, China, for example, has maintained a policy of trying to restrict population growth. Now, its population balance is out of kilter. Its population is ageing and there are not enough young people coming along. I would like to think that reproductive health services are not intended to stop children being born by means of enforced sterilisation or other methods.
  Other hon. Members wish to speak, and I know that we shall have other opportunities to develop our arguments in relation to the Bill, but I should like to know whether there has been a reassessment of the real need for and provision of official development assistance. If I understand the figures correctly, the United Kingdom has provided 25 per cent. of our aid budget through the European Union aid budget. Time and again, however,
  316
  we have been told that that budget has not been handled properly. Why should we allow 25 per cent. of the money that our people want to go to developing countries to be squandered and wasted by the European Union?
  8.30 pm
  Roger Casale: I welcome the Bill, which will be a milestone in our changing approach to international development issues both in the United Kingdom and internationally. I also welcome the Bill's emphasis on the elimination of poverty, which from now on is to he the overarching strategic objective of all our development work, entrenched in statute, I hope, as an immutable goal.
  No more will we have a situation in the United Kingdom, as we have unfortunately had under previous Administrations, in which overseas aid was given on the condition that it would be used to buy goods or even arms from this country. The Bill will ultimately help to boost our exports by making poorer countries richer, but not by offering the type of crass trade-offs between aid and trade that we have seen before. Instead, with trade liberalisation and the forgiveness of debt, aid will be one of the complementary instruments to liberate the potential of the world's poorest countries.
  Despite my remarks about previous Administrations and past events, I welcome the cross-party support for the Bill. I know that the support that was voiced by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), is genuine and based on personal experience and support. I hope that that support will be sustained as we build on the foundation of this new Bill to expand our development work and development efforts.
  I welcome too the Opposition parties' support for the Bill. We must all recognise that the elimination of global poverty has become not only a political project, but one of the great if not the greatest moral issues of our time. That point was driven home to me when, last year, I had the honour of leading a delegation of more than 20 Members of Parliament and peers to take part in a worldwide parliamentary assembly that was convened by the Vatican as part of the jubilee year celebrations in Rome. At the conference, I spoke of the lead that Britain is taking in promoting debt relief around the world, moving ahead of other nations to cancel debt owed to Britain by some of the world's poorest countries, and pushing the international community for faster, deeper and wider debt relief.
  It is not only in the Christian faith that the moral imperative of eliminating debt is so emphatically stated. I think that there is a growing collaboration around the world between religious leaders of the great religious faiths, to make the elimination of poverty the central focus for the international community and for all international work, and to ensure that that objective of poverty reduction is placed at the top of the international agenda and stays at the top for years to come.
  Underpinning that moral concern which is drawn from religious inspiration lies a strong and potentially universal conception of justice. We have an obligation to ensure that in moving to a world in which there is more economic growth and opportunity, we do not do so at the cost of the world's poor, or in a manner that leaves behind part of the world or prejudices and harms the interests of some of the world's most vulnerable people.

  317
  Each generation re-dedicates its commitment to those goals of global social justice and human rights, and the Bill represents the aspirations of this generation as we seek to rededicate ourselves to those aims. Those aims and goals are widely understood and shared in Britain, where so many respected non-governmental organisations have over the years established themselves as world leaders in the field. They include Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children and ActionAid, to name only a few. So much is done in this country by individuals and by charitable and voluntary organisations to improve the human condition of people around the world.
  It is in Britain's best interests to respond generously to international crises and disasters. Despite our imperial past, we have a long tradition of positive engagement to relieve poverty, save lives, and develop and sustain communities around the world. I am pleased that the NGOs that I mentioned, and others, were so closely involved in the drafting of the Bill.
  It is 20 years since a major landmark Bill of this kind was passed here, and even that—as we have heard—was a consolidating measure bringing together existing provisions. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State say that we have subsequently worked to narrow the gap between rich and poor, although I hope that the Minister will give further statistics to confirm that.
  Great progress has certainly been made, especially in improving the world's health, but, as has been said, more than 1 billion people still live in extreme poverty, of whom 70 per cent. are women; and 320 million children have no access to primary education. That is why it is so important for the world community to re-dedicate itself to the international development goals set for this generation, which include reducing by 50 per cent. the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.
  We now live in a world shaped by global economic activity and financial flows, from which no nation and no society can seek refuge. Well-intentioned as their concerns may be, the anti-globalisation protesters cannot themselves get outside the process of globalisation, and the same applies to the world's poor. Nor can we, in today's world, seek simply to compensate those threatened with poverty, living in poverty, or at risk of being left behind by the forces of globalisation.
  Although $50 billion is now being spent on aid around the world, we shall never be able to establish a system of transfers that would compensate the poor for their condition or bring sustained relief. What we can do is refocus that aid, increase it, and put it to use through measures that will be effective in eliminating poverty, as the Bill seeks to do. We must learn to use the $50 billion as an investment, rather than just as money that we spend on the poor.
  As well as committing public investment, we must open up the economies of the poorest countries to private capital and investment flows. We must work to invest in good governance and better public services in such countries—especially health and education—and in infrastructure to make them more attractive and more fit to receive the benefits of trade and investment flows rather than just aid.
  That is behind the notion of sustainable development, which is being restated for the present generation in the Bill. It has been restated by the Secretary of State, who has spoken of lasting benefits for the population of the
  318
  country or countries for which provision is made. Our aid must be an investment that will sustain the development of the world's poorest societies for many years to come.
  If we succeed in refocusing our aid as investment in the world's poor, we should then work to increase that investment. Despite all our efforts—despite the Department's increased spending—this country is still some way from achieving the United Nations' target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product being spent on aid. I hope that the Secretary of State will use the success of the Bill to set out a clear timetable for the reaching of that target very soon, and I also hope that that will have cross-party support.
  There is, I believe, an overwhelming political, moral and practical case for refocusing our development assistance on the elimination of poverty around the world, and that is what the Bill will achieve. It will help to ensure that aid is provided in a way that will sustain the development of the world's poorest societies. We shall come to see aid as an investment that, over time, will help to close the gap between rich and poor, and alleviate the terrible suffering that is still so much a part of the human condition. As I have said, every generation restates its case for making the world a better place.
  In the 19th century, my constituency played host to William Wilberforce, who lived in Wimbledon while he was working in this place for the abolition of slavery. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her Department, under the leadership of Sir John Vereker, who is also my constituent, on the lead that this country is taking in raising the elimination of poverty to the top of the international agenda, and helping to reform not only the way in which UK aid works but the whole international approach to debt relief and aid. My right hon. Friend rightly has the support tonight of the whole House, and that of the vast majority of decent, caring people in Britain who want the Government to succeed in alleviating the plight of the world's poor and in entrenching the search for more global justice to make the world a better and safer place.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I recall speaking on Second Reading of the earlier Bill and on its later stages. Many hon. Members complained then that we had not had enough debates about international development, but somehow that complaint has not been heard tonight. I wonder why. Given that we are having a second bite at the Bill and that we debated the heavily indebted poor countries initiative in Westminster Hall last week, hon. Members feel that they have had an opportunity to make their comments before.
  I take this opportunity to make some points on the Bill on behalf not only of my party, Plaid Cymru, but of the Scottish National party. We have formed a parliamentary group so I speak for both parties tonight when I welcome the Bill very much.
  Two issues connected with the Bill have arisen following the events of 11 September. The first arises from the fact that many people in Wales have asked since those terrible events what the National Assembly can do to help. Many people have asked me whether the Assembly can provide development aid itself, or whether Wales can raise money for the needs of Afghanistan. I looked into the matter, but I regret to say that we have not yet had the devolution of international development to the National Assembly.

  319
  It is interesting, however, to reflect on clause 9, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), because it contains an element of devolution. There is a provision in the Bill for agencies such as health authorities—although we are abolishing those in Wales—health trusts or tourist boards, such as the Wales tourist board, to become involved in international aid, albeit in terms of agreements and not financially. In that context, I wonder whether it is possible to re-examine that issue, in the light of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and whether the National Assembly could play a different and more practical role in helping its employees—for example—to become involved in international aid agreements. Certainly, one of the consequences of 11 September in Wales was a massive concern, led by the churches and supported by many others, to encourage aid from the Welsh people to go to the needy people in Afghanistan.
  The second issue is the interesting concept, reflected by several hon. Members who have spoken tonight, that although we will get rid of tied aid through the Bill—now that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is content with it, so must I—some political influences on aid giving will remain. That is especially true of debt relief which may be tied to aid, and in that context what has been happening in the European Union is worrying. For example, the Minister and his colleagues will soon have to address the issue of the Ilisu dam. It has received a damning environmental assessment, but we still hear rumours that it could be given the go-ahead because of the need to keep Turkey in the international coalition in the fight against terrorism.
  I am sure that it is important that we retain the support of Turkey, despite its history in countries such as Cyprus and Kurdistan, but it would be remiss of the Government to give approval for the construction of the Ilisu dam to ensure that Turkey stayed on board. The dam would destabilise the middle east and help create a humanitarian crisis in Kurdistan. It would exacerbate the water difficulties in the middle east and even perhaps lead to the possibility of water wars in the area. It would make the Pergau dam look like a puddle.
  Labour Members have spoken a lot about the Pergau dam scandal. They should reflect on what the Ilisu dam could do for their Government. I am sure that they will pressure the Government to reject any export credit guarantees for that dam.
  I come now to the meat of the Bill. We still have some concerns about its definition of sustainable development. I raised this matter on Report earlier this year, and Lord Judd mentioned it in another place. The problem is not so much that the Bill's definition is wrong but that it is not the definition most commonly used internationally.
  I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the Brundtland definition, which states that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. That has been accepted as the standard international definition of sustainable development for many years. The sustainable development strategy of the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the previous Government referred to the Brundtland definition as the international definition.
  320
  The National Assembly of Wales is under a statutory duty for sustainable development, even though the Government of Wales Act 1998 contains no definition of sustainable development. The Assembly has also come across the Brundtland definition, and in its sustainable development strategy states that that definition is the one that is most appropriate and workable.
  The Standing Committee considering the Bill will be able to explore the question of why the Government have chosen the definition of sustainable development that appears in the Bill over the Brundtland definition. It is important to emphasise that the Brundtland definition is not narrowly focused on the environment. Social and economic factors must be taken into account in any decisions that the Secretary of State might make on international aid in the context of sustainable development.
  It would be a good sign if the Government were to adopt the Brundtland definition. It is the most appropriate and telling definition of sustainable development and would give the Secretary of State enough freedom to make her decisions in the light of both environmental factors and of the very important social and economic factors.
  I tabled an amendment on Report to include the Brundtland definition in the Bill, and the then Minister responded that it was too narrowly focused. I do not accept that, and the matter is well worth exploration in Committee.
  We must all bear it in mind that, after warfare, climate change is likely to have the greatest impact on developing countries. The Tyndall centre last year released a report on the countries most affected by climate change, where sustainable development would best be targeted. The report found that the country most likely to be affected by climate change was Afghanistan. The present drought there makes it clear why the report came to that conclusion.
  I come now to the WTO, and I associate myself with the telling observations of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). She said that Britain should address the question of trade liberalisation and explained how it could be used to eliminate world poverty, and how it is not being used in that way at present.
  I do not doubt that the Government's motives on that matter are clean, and that the White Paper on eliminating world poverty makes it clear that the Government believe that trade liberalisation in international development.
  However, I am a sceptic about the present WTO system; I believe that the WTO is dancing to the tune of corporate America. We have seen a recent example, with the pressure put by the US Government on the producers of the anti-anthrax drug, Cipro, to cut the price that the Americans had to pay to a quarter of what it should be. I contrast that with what happened with anti-HIV drugs in South Africa. Double standards are being applied, and we need to address that within the WTO as a matter of urgency.
  If we look at the history of global trade, we see that the poorest 20 per cent. get 1.1 per cent. of world income, while the richest 20 per cent. get 86 per cent. Although global trade has increased 17-fold over the past 50 years, Latin America's share of it has decreased from 11 to 5 per cent., and Africa's share from 8 to 2 per cent.

  321
  Although trade liberalisation could be said to be working in certain parts of the world—South Korea, for example, and the rest of east Asia—Africa, which all hon. Members tonight have accepted as one of the scars on the face of poverty, has not benefited from world trade. The WTO needs to realise that its current role in promoting economic growth by orienting economies towards boosting exports and attracting investment does not appear to be working for most developing countries, and certainly not for the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa has lost 30 per cent. of its GDP over recent years, rather than gaining anything. Global trade liberalisation works in some places, but not for the world as a whole, and if the WTO is to do anything in Doha over the next few days, it must think about how it can reorient trade liberalisation for the benefit of the poorest countries, not just the richest countries.
  Earlier today we heard a very positive statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in which there was mention—no, I shall be generous and say that there was more than mention—of such issues. However, I am not convinced that they will be properly discussed this weekend. As we have already heard, the draft statement published by the WTO has already been accepted by the secretariat as the final statement. It is a real issue if the secretariat, in consultation with a small number of countries, sets the agenda for the WTO without listening to the whole membership.
  Clare Short: I agree that we need to make the trade rules give more opportunities to the poorest countries. However, the WTO is only five years old; it was created after the Uruguay round, and three quarters of its members are developing countries. It does not matter what the secretariat says; if the countries involved do not want a round to be launched on the basis of that document, it will not happen. The WTO is an intergovernmental organisation. Of course the question of the different capacities of different Governments arises, but the organisation gives developing countries the chance to equalise the rules of world trade and make them fairer. That is what is important about what the WTO could deliver.
  Mr. Thomas: I agree. I accept the principle of working within the WTO, but as her the Secretary of State says, the capacities of different countries are very different. We have already heard about how many members of staff some countries have working for the organisation on a daily basis, and how much influence certain lobbyists can have there. I welcome her comments and I agree with her, but we shall see what happens over the weekend. We shall see whether we arrive at a round that benefits the poorest countries.
  I should like the Government to accept that trade liberalisation is not a goal in itself, but a tool for meeting the aim of worldwide sustainable development. We need a paradigm shift in thinking in the developed world. Perhaps the Secretary of State and her Minister have already made that shift, but at European Union level it has still to be seen.
  We see that most clearly with the subsidies to agriculture, and the difficulties that we have in setting up a new system that would, in my view, benefit not only the farmers in this country but the developing world. To use the word in a different context, perhaps it is time for
  322
  protectionism for the poor. The launch of the Trade Justice Movement this week in the House was an important step in involving parliamentarians of all parties in the developing discussion of what might be happening in the WTO.
  We must look at our agricultural subsidies and how they exclude trade. We must also look at the general agreement on trade in services and how that can work properly in developing countries. In Mauritania, for example, 20 per cent. of the household budget is needed to pay for water following the privatisation of water services.
  The WTO conference also needs to look at TRIPS, or trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. It is important to support patenting in order to develop new drugs, but it is also important to recognise that generic copies of vital drugs are essential for developing countries. In that context, the potential is there for the global health fund to work almost as a counter balance to TRIPS. As was said earlier, we hope that the global health fund money will become additional to any sources of funding in the Department for International Development.
  I accept that the WTO has been established for only five years, but it has yet to prove that it is working for the world's poorest. One issue that needs to be considered is the hidden subsidies in the west that may not be in the WTO agreements but are in associated international agreements. The most obvious one is Kyoto. The American Government's refusal to implement Kyoto represents, in effect, a massive subsidy to its industry. American exports are not fully priced in that respect because the full implications of Kyoto are not placed on them. America is depending on developing world carbon sinks to keep its exports cheap and its industry subsidised. Although it is not on the agenda in Doha as far as I know, it must be appreciated that the next round, whatever it is, can move forward only if it goes hand-in-hand with other international agreements such as Kyoto. If sustainable development is to mean anything, there has to be full implementation, particularly by the USA, of the Kyoto agreement.
  We must also consider the possibility of a Tobin tax, or some form of international agreement on currency speculation. In that way, international capitalism, along with Governments, can make a contribution to the needs of developing countries.
  Finally, we must keep our promises. We promised in 1970, at the General Assembly of the UN, that we would meet the contribution to international development of 0.7 per cent. of GDP by the middle of the 1970s. It is now the beginning of the 21st century. We reiterated the promise in the real declaration under the local Agenda 21 process. All Governments have a lamentable record on meeting the 0.7 per cent. target. It is true that the Government have recently increased their contribution to international development to about 0.31 per cent. and are on target for a contribution of 0.33 per cent. However, at the present rate of growth, it will take us 50 years to reach 0.7 per cent. I hope to be around in 50 years, although I hope that I will not be a Member of this House then. However, I hope that I do not have to wait 50 years to see us reach the 0.7 per cent. figure. Whether the target is incorporated into the Bill, which might not be acceptable, or whether it is in a strategy introduced by the Government, it must be reached. Let us aspire to be like Luxembourg, and meet that target.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I have tended to agree with most of what everybody has said. I agreed with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) until he mentioned the Tobin tax, but as he did not elaborate on it, I did not intervene on him.
  The debate and the Bill highlight the issues at the forefront of many people's minds with regard to Britain's tradition of aid—particularly humanitarian aid—when it is directed towards the situation in Afghanistan. We have had debates about the situation on other occasions and I do not want to go into it in any detail.
  The Bill is about the longer-term objectives of international development and how we meet our obligations.
  To some extent it is a motherhood and apple pie Bill: there is little in it to which most of us would object. Few people—apart, perhaps, from some in the odd public bar—would be against our providing assistance to developing nations. Few people would be against us doing something to alleviate world poverty. Few Members do not believe that we should make globalisation work for every nation—rich and poor.
  The real test is whether the Bill and the activities of the Department for International Development can make a difference. Will the powers enacted under the measure be effective in delivering our objectives? The Bill is really about outcomes. Will the results of the use of our limited resources make a difference to the developing world and to those people in the world to whom we have an obligation?
  I am not alone in thinking that the long-term answer to poverty alleviation rests with trade liberalisation. I was impressed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), in which she referred to the WTO talks in Doha and to the effort that we must make to put pressure on our WTO partners to bring about trade liberalisation. That pressure must be exerted especially on our partners in the European Union and the United States—
  Clare Short: And Japan.
  Mr. Walter: And, indeed, in Japan, as the Secretary of State has just pointed out. We had better not get into a debate on how the rice market affects Japan.
  The real opportunity for much of the developing world lies in agricultural production. Developing countries need to be able to market their produce globally without being subject to the protectionism erected by the industrialised world where other things could be produced much more effectively. We should all be dedicated to that.
  In the UK, we traditionally believe that we have an obligation to equip the developing world with the capital and resources to supply those global markets. We have always seen it as our role to provide education and expertise to developing economies, so it is ironic that the Department devoted to poverty alleviation—the House must forgive my slight criticism on one point—should have imposed conditions on one of the essential vehicles for the delivery of that assistance, thereby causing it to turn its back on key sectors of industry in the developing world. I was disappointed by the Secretary of State's response to my intervention about the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
  324
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation, whose name does not appear in the Bill, should be key to the delivery of the Bill's objectives. Alas, I believe that the corporation has turned its back on that important agriculture sector in the developing world. Before it is too late—before the Bill leaves the House and receives its Royal Assent—we should re-dedicate the corporation to a key role in meeting our international development objectives.
  Like many colleagues, I have been fortunate enough on several occasions during my four and half years as a Member of this place to visit developing countries under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have visited countries in Africa and Asia, and this year I was fortunate enough to visit Belize and Jamaica. Some of my comments about DFID and the Commonwealth Development Corporation are based on my experience on those visits.
  The history of the CDC goes right back to 1948 and the Colonial Development Corporation. It was renamed the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the mid-1960s. In 1997, its new mandate was to invest in sustainable and socially responsible projects that were also profitable. There is no criticism of that or any objection to it. The idea of the changes was simply to raise capital from the private sector. The Secretary of State alluded to that in her response to my intervention. However, the reality is that the management team at the CDC seems to have different objectives.
  Many of the CDC's assets are loans in Africa and developing countries elsewhere in farms and forests. They were in long-term, labour-intensive agricultural projects run by local experts, but the trouble is that agriculture does not produce the kind of returns that emerging market funds are looking for. It produces returns of at best 8, 9 or 10 per cent. There are many emerging market funds based in the City of London that could return 20 per cent. or more, and that seems to be what the CDC now aspires to be. Therefore, many agricultural projects are going; many are up for sale. I saw one in Belize this summer. The Del Oro citrus project, which was put together and funded by the CDC, is now up for sale, but there are no buyers. The despair among the citrus growers in that region has to be seen to be believed. They feel that the CDC, Britain and DFID are turning their backs on them.

  Offices of the CDC have been closed. When I asked about the CDC in Jamaica, I was told that the regional office had moved to Miami—that well-known Commonwealth country, and of course in a developing nation. I do not believe that the CDC's role is to be an emerging market fund alongside all the other emerging market funds. It is a genuine development bank, a development corporation that can take equity stakes in Commonwealth and other countries. Its objectives have been widened. That is part of what the objectives of the Department for International Development should be—using CDC as a vehicle.
  I believe that the CDC is a key weapon in Britain's armoury, not just another investment bank. It now sits with its £2 billion budget somewhat uneasily—
  Clare Short: One billion.
  Mr. Walter: The Secretary of State corrects me. I will take her word for that.

  325
  Of course the CDC's £1 billion should not be spent just on poverty alleviation, but poverty alleviation seems to be far distant from its objectives now. I see it as a publicly funded commercial enterprise that seeks returns with no demonstrable impact on poverty. That is uncomfortable.
  Many CDC offices are being closed. The corporation's commitment to Africa certainly seems to be diminishing. Its chairman, Lord Cairns, insists that it can achieve its mission of realising attractive returns to shareholders. That will also have an effect of assisting social development. Yet the CDC's new investments are in urban services for a rich minority and rural areas are being ignored, although they are where 85 per cent. of the poverty that we seek to alleviate is found.
  Britain's international development aims represent a force for good in the world, which is why the Bill is supported on both sides of the House. That cross-party consensus is good and right, but the Bill is not beyond improvement. and we should enhance the CDC's role and return it to its original objective—to aid DFID in delivering its goals.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate. I feel privileged to follow so many thoughtful and positive contributions.
  I have not always agreed with many things that the Secretary of State has said over the years—our politics are very different—but I have observed her closely in the five years that she has held her current post, and she has shown obvious dedication to the job. I commend her on that and on the determination that she is showing to try to alleviate poverty and to deal with many of the disastrous events in the world today. We have a duty, as a civilised nation, to do everything that we can to alleviate catastrophes, wherever they may occur in the world and whoever is affected. I am pleased that work is being done to further that aim.
  I want to respond to the comments by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge); I certainly respect much of what she has said. However, I do not believe that the Conservative party has experienced a tremendous conversion to believing in helping the poor and in changing things to better the lives of people around the world—it has always held that view. Of course, 15 or 20 years ago things were very different. We were living in a different world, there was a cold war, and the west had economic difficulties. Many of those problems have been resolved, perhaps only to be replaced by new ones. Nevertheless, it has to be remembered that, 15 or 20 years ago, it was not quite so easy for countries such as ours to respond in the more positive way that economic prosperity has given us the opportunity to do, and I ask the hon. Lady to consider that in future debates on this topic.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made a very valid point about the money that we pay towards the EU and the fact that so much is lost. I hope that the Government will reconsider those arrangements. I honestly believe that it is better for the Government to decide how to spend overseas aid, rather than for the money necessarily to go via the EU; we know that a lot of money is wasted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), made important and valid points about the persecution of religious minorities, and I urge the Secretary of State to consider that issue as well.
  326
  The Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), is not in the Chamber now, but I commend her on her very thoughtful and sincere remarks. I am impressed by her compassion, and I am proud to speak in support of much of what she said this evening. I join her in broadly welcoming the spirit of the Bill, but I have several important reservations and I should like to outline them this evening.
  Our country has a long record of giving aid and taking an active and productive role in international development. We should be proud of that and seek to continue it. We should wholeheartedly subscribe to the principle of helping those who are trying to escape poverty and who will benefit from a helping hand to take them out of the trap that prevents them from being able to help themselves. Freedom brings prosperity. Aid is vital to that, but we need also to promote freedom.
  The previous Conservative Government formed the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Although not directly relevant to the Bill, I am proud to have played a part in helping to promote the ideas of freedom and democracy around the world in my role as chairman of the International Young Democrat Union and previously as co-ordinator for the freedom training programme, in conjunction with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, working in many countries—in particular Africa, eastern Europe, Latin America and, most recently, the Caribbean. That was a positive achievement by the Government, and it attracted all-party support. The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Pattie was instrumental in that, along with his counterparts in other parties.
  A political system can make a big difference, as can an economic system. Aid is not simply the answer; other things need to happen for a country to prosper and for people to have opportunities. The free market economy, which almost all hon. Members accept, is the way forward for developing countries. Trade liberalisation is vital. We must work with all developing countries to help them and teach them the ways of the free market.
  The Bill fails to acknowledge deeper issues that relate to corruption and the encouragement of good governance, which make it ambiguous and too narrow. The lack of an attempt to define poverty is the most striking flaw. I freely admit that I was not a Member when the first version was introduced in the previous Session, but I know that many hon. Members rightly questioned that omission. I shall not repeat those arguments at length, but it is important to observe the Government's inconsistency.
  The Government feel competent enough to give a precise definition of development assistance and a broad definition of sustainable development, but are unable to define poverty, on which everything else hinges. Indeed, clause 1(1) is clear in stating that the Secretary of State may provide development assistance if that is
  "likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty."
  That leaves the right hon. Lady with a blank cheque. The Bill guides her on how she may provide assistance, but the decision on whether to do so or not is based entirely on what she deems to qualify as poverty.

  327
  In theory, poverty could be anything from the unthinkable levels of starvation and deprivation suffered by approximately 1.2 billion people around the world who are forced to survive on less than $1 a day, to countries where the perceived standard of living, based merely on economic indicators, is deemed to be poor. With no clear boundaries, Governments may find themselves in troubled waters, unable to justify the point at which the line must be drawn.
  I come now to a different but no less important aspect of the debate. The Bill significantly lacks measures to guarantee that any assistance will genuinely help those who most need it, and will not be diverted to those who may abuse it. The Government have consistently promised to be tough on corruption, and I commend them for that—yet, as far as I can see, the Bill contains no acknowledgement of the possibility of bribery and corruption, let alone any measures to tackle it. Furthermore, the Bill fails to focus on the importance of promoting good governance. It touches on the provision of assistance incorporating technical aid, particularly in the form of know-how, but it does not explicitly recognise the link that undoubtedly exists between good governance and positive change.
  If, through our aid packages, we do not promote the ideas of good governance, we will have failed. We may have offered a short-term solution to the pressing problems caused by a natural disaster or a conflict, but we will not have delivered any lasting benefit. The International Development Committee reported last April that
  "poor governance and weak institutions"
  are the primary cause of corruption, and said that
  "corruption further undermines development and growth and constitutes a serious threat to attempts to eliminate poverty."
  It went on to say that
  "the elimination of corruption should be central to a responsible development strategy."
  Yet the Bill makes no mention of the elimination of corruption. As I said, it does not even acknowledge the problem.
  Clare Short: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was present for earlier speeches. There is no doubt that dealing with corruption and ensuring effective governance are crucial to development. The Bill gives the Government the flexibility to tackle corruption, develop effective governance, improve public services and try to resolve conflict. He is misleading us by suggesting that the Bill is not intended to deal with corruption, and I am surprised that he persists with that false analysis.
  Mr. Rosindell: I am sure that much more can be discussed in Committee. My speech is intended to encourage the Government to improve the Bill, which, as I have already said, I very much support, as do the Opposition. I look forward to the Committee proceedings, and I hope that the Government will consider improvements and stronger measures.
  When the Bill was first presented to the House, the Secretary of State rejected the notion of including in it the OECD convention on combating bribery because of a lack
  328
  of time. There is no general election looming now, so the Government do not have an excuse. Let us hope that the matter can be reconsidered in Committee.
  The Bill presents the Government with an ideal opportunity to prove that they are serious about tackling corruption. To be serious, they must explicitly recognise, from the outset, that corruption is part of the problem, and where it exists it will only be worsened by the unconditional giving of material aid. All the evidence presented to the Select Committee indicated that it is commonplace for countries in receipt of material aid to waste up to 70 per cent. of resources through petty corruption because bureaucrats on exceedingly low pay have no choice but to resort to corrupt practices to provide for their families. That corruption, in turn, hurts the poorest the most.
  When World Bank staff estimate that between 20 and 30 per cent. of development funds to Indonesia have been systematically diverted, and organisations such as Transparency International discover that the poor in countries such as Bangladesh have to make corrupt payments to receive health care and education, we know that there is a major problem that must not be ignored. When giving evidence to the International Development Committee, the Secretary of State admitted
  you cannot do development without dealing with corruption if you are operating in countries that have got corruption problems."
  I entirely agree with that very clear statement. Sadly, it does not appear to be fully reflected in the Bill, but I look forward to that happening.
  My final comments relate to the attitude taken towards the British overseas territories. We should not treat our overseas territories differently from any other part of the United Kingdom. I accept that the Bill is well intentioned and I support it, but I am concerned that we are treating our overseas territories differently. We should not do so. A disaster in, say, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, St. Helena or the Pitcairn Islands should be treated in exactly the same way as we would respond to a disaster in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. However, the Bill, while removing the condition of development aid being provided to reduce poverty, continues to refer to overseas territories as though they were foreign territories. They are not. They are British, and rightly so.
  Tony Baldry: I think that my hon. Friend might be misleading himself. The overseas territories are small territories which for various reasons have not become independent, or have not wanted to. The money given under the Bill and previous legislation is not for emergency or humanitarian relief; it is given to ensure that they acquire the infrastructure and development they need to build themselves up; otherwise, they would face considerable difficulties.
  Mr. Rosindell: I accept that point. I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. However, I feel strongly that citizens of our overseas territories should be made to feel that they are as British as the rest of us.
  Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rosindell: I am about to finish my speech, but I will give way.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I just wanted to say that I entirely agree with him.
  Mr. Rosindell: I thank the hon. Lady.

  329
  Although I would like to say more, I am anxious that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) should have the opportunity to speak. I conclude by saying that it is only right that our primary focus should be on how we can help those who are in need of our assistance. However, that help must tackle the deeper issues, or it might be of no help at all.
  9.27 pm
  Angela Watkinson: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the framework of our international development policy. The outcome of the Bill will be vital to the 1.2 billion people throughout the world who live in extreme poverty—that is, surviving on less than $1 a day.
  During the 1990s, one third of the world's children suffered from malnutrition. Although there was a worldwide reduction of 17 per cent. in that figure, it fell far short of the 50 per cent. target, whereas in sub-Saharan Africa the absolute number of malnourished children actually increased. The under-five mortality rate in low-income countries in 1999 was 116 children per 1,000 born, compared with only five per 1,000 in high-income countries. The overall situation has been made much worse by the events in America on 11 September and their adverse effect on economic growth in developing countries. Up to 10 million more people now face poverty in 2002.
  We need to achieve the targets set at the G7 Finance Ministers meeting in Palermo in 2001. Those targets include progress towards gender equality, especially in terms of education for girls, by 2005; a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty—I understand that some progress has been made in that respect; universal primary education in all countries; and access to reproductive health services through primary care. At this point, let me reassure the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who was concerned that those funds are concentrated on contraception. In fact, they are concentrated on ensuring safer childbirth and on prenatal and antenatal services for women.
  With less than 15 years to go, the prospects for success in some areas are improving but, on present trends, none of the goals in health or education is likely to be achieved globally. Bearing that in mind, I support the broad thrust of the Bill, which will become the new basis for United Kingdom provision of overseas assistance. There are some issues of concern, which I almost hesitate to mention, given the consensual debate that we have had this evening. However, none are insuperable, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to address them in Committee.
  The Bill seeks to clarify the purposes for which development assistance is provided; in other words, it should help to reduce poverty, and it widens the means to do so. However, it does not define poverty, which is a subjective term and requires explanation. It gives the Government powers to provide humanitarian relief, although no time scale is given, and there is no requirement for such assistance to contribute specifically to poverty reduction. It is not just the quantity of aid that matters, but its effectiveness. We must ensure that it reaches the people for whom it is intended. The method of distribution is vital, and charities and non-governmental organisations could play a much greater role in
  330
  development. As we strive to increase our giving, we must ensure that food aid intended for starving civilians is not commandeered to feed an army. Financial aid should never be allowed to find its way into Swiss bank accounts or be invested in international property portfolios.
  We must encourage good governance in developing countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke powerfully about that. We should not increase aid to countries where there is a deterioration in human rights or an increase in military spending. I was pleased that the Secretary of State spoke about improvements and progress in China, where coercive birth control is causing women distress. I welcome the HIPC initiative, but its delivery is taking too long. I hope that we will look more closely at the financial progress of individual countries and the root causes of problems in indebted countries to give them an opportunity to achieve genuine sustainable development, and so break the link between dependency and debt.
  There is a close link between debt relief and corruption. The OECD's convention on combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions was signed in December 1997, yet still awaits ratification. Four years on, the United Kingdom lags way down the list of countries that have promised to introduce that legislation. I urge the Government to make time to deal with that matter; perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on that when he responds to our debate.
  My main concern is the waste and mismanagement of the EU aid budget, which has still not been tackled, even though the agency has been called the worst in the world. Member states should be able to deliver more aid bilaterally and should certainly do so more effectively. EU aid programmes have been found to have serious weaknesses and shortcomings. In the past five years, the average delay in the disbursement of committed funds has increased from three years to four and a half years. It is a scandal that people are suffering for any longer than is necessary because of bureaucracy or inefficiency in the EU. Between 25 and 30 per cent. of the Department's budget is spent by the European Community, but we have little control over its spending decisions. If we did have more control over those decisions, I wonder whether the Department would have made different priority decisions about where aid is spent, for example, in India.
  This year, our spending amounted to £728 million. Are any measures in place to determine what percentage of that money has been spent effectively? Or do we have to wait another five years before measures are in place to find out that there has been no improvement in systems? Between 1979 and 1997, the average UK net overseas development assistance, as a percentage of gross national product, was 0.32 per cent. Although that has since dropped to 0.26 per cent., I note that our target increase for 2003–04 is 0.33 per cent. We all look forward to reaching the 0.7 per cent. target. It is our duty, as a rich country, to achieve it.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: There has been much all-party agreement during the debate. I therefore wind up the debate for the official Opposition with some satisfaction. The House of Commons is often at its best when thoughtful speeches tackle genuine issues in measures such as the Bill. The Secretary of State will

  331
  agree that there was much common ground between her opening speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman).
  The opening speeches were followed by impressive contributions from hon. Members of all parties. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who has been involved with international development for a long time, began with a generous and deserved tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. However, he was uncharacteristically and unfairly critical of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) when he mentioned my hon. Friend's contribution in a debate before the general election. My hon. Friend was never mean-minded, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I know that the Under-Secretary will concede that the Opposition's approach to the Bill has not changed. When the measure was debated in the previous Parliament, we welcomed it but made two or three points that my hon. Friends have highlighted again today.
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) introduced a note of party political controversy to the debate. Nevertheless, in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), she said that she agreed with some of his points.
  The House is familiar with well observed, thorough and detailed contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who chairs the International Development Committee. In paying tribute to him and his work, it would be remiss if I did not mention the important work of the previous Chairman. I note that the Secretary of State nods. Bowen Wells, the former Member for Hertford and Stortford, chaired the Select Committee superbly and a great deal of his work will be reflected in our work in Standing Committee. Tribute was properly paid to him at this morning's annual general meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury spoke of his experience on a recent visit to Burkina Faso. He said that he was worried that the Bill did not cover EU contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) also made that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury rightly pointed out that malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB kill 5 million people a year and that the global health fund must be made to work.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) talked about his work on the International Development Committee and his recent visit to Cambodia. He rightly said that the Department's work increases day by day, week by week, month by month and year by year. He made the interesting point that the provision of aid does not stop rich terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. He also made valuable points about the recruitment of young Muslims by terrorists such as the al-Qaeda network.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has a long-standing interest in international development, referred to the predictions that he made in the debate on the White Paper in May. He pointed out with sadness how quickly his dire warning—that poverty breeds fundamentalism, which breeds terrorism—had been realised.
  My hon. Friend cited the Secretary of State's acceptance of the fact that the world's poorest people often come from religious minorities
  332
  I think that the whole House was grateful to my hon. Friend for the examples that he gave in relation to the plight of the Montagnard people in Vietnam, the Coptic Christians in Egypt and minorities in Burma. All hon. Members will be concerned about the persecution of those people.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made a good speech, which, I should tell her, has been praised by a number of subsequent contributors while she has been out of the Chamber. She spoke of her concerns about tied aid and about the Doha talks.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), in a characteristically thoughtful contribution to the debate, said that people in Northern Ireland give more per capita to charitable good causes overseas than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. He mentioned his meeting earlier today with a delegation from the Philippines, and the fact that the people of Mindanao are once again vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.
  The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) welcomed the cross-party support for the Bill and paid a well-deserved tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. He said that he wanted aid to be focused on the world's very poorest people, and stressed his own constituency links with William Wilberforce.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made a detailed speech in which he pointed out that he was having a second bite at the cherry on this Bill, as he had spoken in the Second Reading debate of its predecessor, which failed because of the general election. He said that he was speaking on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, so one might say that he was speaking for all the Celts in this debate. He spoke about the Brundtland definition and the World Trade Organisation, and said that he wanted the whole of the Department for International Development's budget to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. He also talked about what has been called the Tobin tax, but he may not have been aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House think that that should be rechristened in honour of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who supported it earlier today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), in his thoughtful and well-argued speech, referred to the Bill as motherhood and apple pie. He showed his great expertise and knowledge of the subject, especially in voicing his concern that the Bill does not fully reflect the work done by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. He also talked about what he had seen on visits to Belize and Jamaica earlier this year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romford talked about the difficulties in the very different world of 15 to 20 years ago. He broadly welcomed the spirit of the Bill, and described the work in which he has personally been involved with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the International Young Democrat Union. He stressed his concerns about the overseas territories, which the Secretary of State will know that Conservative Front Bench Members share. We shall return to them in Committee, as we shall to my hon. Friend's concern about implementing the provisions against bribery and corruption. We have consistently stressed that concern here and in another place, and we shall undoubtedly return to it.

  333
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster spoke of her concern about the waste and mismanagement of the European Union aid budget.
  This has been an important and good debate on both sides of the House, on a very important Bill. We welcome the Bill, but we must bear it in mind that the background to all these overseas aid issues is that, despite decades of assistance from so many bodies in the developed world, most of Africa and much of Latin America, Asia and the middle east are, tragically, economically worse off today than they were 20 years ago. In the late 1990s, the United Nations released figures showing that 70 poor countries were worse off than they had been in 1980, and that 43 were worse off than they had been in 1970, despite decades of aid spending.
  We hope that this consolidation of previous legislation will give the Department for International Development the opportunity to help to reverse that trend. All hon. Members recognise that, too often, aid programmes have brought neither material prosperity nor political stability to many regions. That is why Conservative Members have been particularly concerned about the measures in the Bill that deal with good governance. That is another matter to which we shall return in Committee.
  This is a good Bill, but it can be improved in Committee if the Government will take on board the relatively small but important improvements that we have repeatedly stressed. Although the Government did not accept them before the general election, we hope that they will finally do so now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rightly said, the Bill is very good but it could be made even better with a few changes, as we have suggested.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): We have had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, to which many right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. It has just been summed up by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) with his characteristic skill. May I say to him and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that I very much welcome the spirit of their remarks. As the hon. Lady said, we have a common goal; that has been demonstrated in speeches from both sides of the Chamber.
  The hon. Lady asked how the principles established in the Bill will be expressed in joined-up government. We had a good illustration of that earlier today when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement about Doha. Those who were in the Chamber to listen to it will have heard her speak almost exclusively about Doha's potential to make a difference to developing countries.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred, all in different ways, to the potential power of trade to make a difference, and I very much endorse those remarks. I particularly endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill and others about developing countries' capacity to engage in the process. We must be clear that the World Trade Organisation is a body of sovereign Governments and we should not talk down the capacity, in a true sense, of developing countries to engage in that process and ultimately to shape it as they want. My Department is trying to assist them in that process.
  334
  The hon. Member for Meriden asked whether the Bill would adversely affect our work on good governance, which has been one of the themes of the debate, or on issues such as efficient revenue collection. I take this opportunity to reassure her that that will not be the case. Both of those will be supported and permitted.
  I welcome the hon. Lady's commitment, on behalf of her party, on tied aid. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is now reassured on that question. As she asked me to repeat the remarks of my distinguished predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), let me say that the Government believe that, under the Bill, a policy of tying aid would not be sustainable.
  Clare Short: Or legal.
  Hilary Benn: Or, indeed, legal. Any future Secretary of State who tried to act illegally would be subject to the powers of the courts. We think that that offers sufficient protection.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) spoke with his characteristic depth of knowledge about disability. He also mentioned maternal mortality. I had a chance to look at that subject at first hand last week when I was in Malawi, where I had the opportunity to visit a safe motherhood project that the Department is supporting. It is a practical, down-to-earth project that is trying to encourage discussion within the community about the importance of getting women experiencing difficulty in labour to specialist help as quickly as possible. It includes talking to the ambulance service and dispatchers about the need to prioritise calls on behalf of women who find themselves in that position.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the Ilisu dam. They will both be aware that that is an export credit guarantee issue and is not covered by the Bill, but I shall undertake to convey to the Minister responsible their request for further information.
  A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), discussed the effectiveness of European Union aid. Indeed, that has been a theme of the debate. The Bill covers only the European development fund element of European spending, but I think that the whole House is agreed on the need to improve further the effectiveness and the poverty focus of EC development programmes.
  As we have said on various occasions—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been particularly vigorous in pressing this point, as has the Select Committee on International Development—the scale and the scope of the EC's development aid budget means that it should have enormous potential. I think that all hon. Members will agree that it has failed to fulfil that potential, which is why the current reform programme has to succeed.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) did not disturb the bipartisan spirit of our debate. Indeed, I think that he added to it when he said that poverty reduction should concern the conservative philosophy as much as it should other political philosophies represented

  335
  in our society. I very much welcome his statement and the way in which he said it, because I think that he was absolutely right.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of human rights. I undertake to look into the three specific cases that he identified: Vietnam, Egypt and Burma. I should add, however, that Vietnam has been able to make significant progress in poverty reduction. He was generous enough to acknowledge the support that we are already giving Burma. However, as a Government, in making decisions we can and do distinguish between the policies of a particular Government and the needs of people who—as I am sure all hon. Members will agree—should not suffer because of the Government under whom they happen to live or whom, in the case of Burma, they have had no part in choosing.
  The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Ceredigion mentioned the devolved aspects of the legislation. The Northern Ireland Administration and the Welsh Assembly both recognise that international development is a reserved matter. The Northern Ireland Administration is not accountable for any of the statutory bodies listed in schedule 1—although I notice that the Wales tourist board is so listed. However, the Bill makes provision for consultation with the devolved Administrations before we enter into any arrangements with either Welsh or Northern Irish statutory bodies. I hope that that offers some reassurance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) said that John Vereker, the permanent secretary at the Department for International Development, is one of his constituents. I am glad that he did so because, as hon. Members may be aware, John Vereker will be moving on to take up new duties before the end of the year. This debate therefore gives me the opportunity not only on my own behalf, but probably more significantly on behalf of my right hon. Friend—who has worked very closely with him since she became Secretary of State in 1997—to thank him for the distinguished contribution that he has made in the past eight years to the work of the Department and to international development more broadly. In the short time that I have been a Minister in the Department, I have certainly valued his enormous depth of knowledge, his intellect and the way in which he conducts himself. I am sure that the whole House would like to wish him all the very best in the new duties to which he will be moving.
  The issue of sustainable development was raised in this debate, and it was debated at some length in the Bill's previous incarnation. I think that we have to ensure that the concept is not captured either by those who take an entirely economic view of sustainable development or by those who see it principally as an environmental concern—something that I learned forcefully when I was in Indonesia, where the economics of sustainable livelihoods in a forest community are about trying to balance those two sometimes competing demands. I think that clause 1(3) is not so much a definition as a safeguard against the narrowing of that concept by anyone who has a particular definition favouring one concept or the other.
  The hon. Members for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—in an east London-Essex alliance—urged us to examine the definition of poverty. I
  336
  am not sure how much would be gained by entering into a long debate—although I should be happy to do so in Committee—on precisely how we define poverty. I think that the most important consideration is that the international community has defined the goals of poverty reduction that it wishes to reach and that it wishes to work on by means of both the millennium development goals and the international development targets.
  Our debate this evening, if not overshadowed by the events of 11 September, has been very much influenced by them—and that is precisely as it should be, because we have all had a lot of thinking to do in the last few weeks, and a great deal to learn. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West made the point when he spoke of the importance of development education.
  One of the most important lessons of that experience is directly relevant to the Bill. It is simply this: a world scarred by poverty, injustice and inequality will never be a safe world. If the case for what the Bill seeks to achieve was strong before 11 September, as indeed it was, it is much stronger now.
  When the individuals who took up Osama bin Laden's invocation to go and kill Americans, picking as their target the symbol of the international financial system—the twirl towers—they in fact killed people from 62 countries across the world. In that respect, I think that the twin towers symbolise something else that is just as significant: the extent to which this very small and fragile world of ours is now more interdependent and interlinked than it has been at any time in its history.
  This is a world in which what happens in one country affects those who live in another. For example, conflict in Afghanistan results in refugees in Leeds, Birmingham and other cities of the United Kingdom. It is a world in which events that occur in one country are instantly seen by those of us living in other countries, because of the power of television to shrink the globe. I believe that it is a world in which, as a result of all those things, we have a responsibility for each other.
  For all the reasons that I have given, international development can no longer be regarded as some kind of good-hearted add-on to real politics. It is now the very heart of political debate and political argument, not least because of my right hon. Friend's efforts to make it so, and the way in which she has put the case over the past four years. The moral case, to which many Members have referred, is now reinforced by the political case.
  The hon. Member for Banbury hit the nail on the head when he said that we have an unprecedented opportunity. I believe that passionately, because the world is now more alive to these issues. The world has been forced to be more aware, and the world must now respond to that greater awareness by making decisions that will make a real difference.
  Having entered the 21st century with half the world living on less than $2 a day and one in five of our fellow men and women living on less than $1 a day, we simply cannot afford to leave it with such high levels of poverty. That is why the reduction of poverty, which is what the Bill is about, must be our overriding aim.

  337
  The level of aid matters enormously, of course. It is a source of pride that the UK's development aid budget is increasing, and that my right hon. Friend will have been responsible for delivering a 45 per cent. real-terms increase between 1997 and 2003–04, when the budget will reach £3.6 billion—the highest development aid budget in the history of the United Kingdom.
  A number of Members asked how we would move towards the 0.7 per cent. target. I welcome all their comments, and will ensure that they are passed on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, I am sure, will read them with great interest.
  The UK's role in debt relief has delivered, for 23 of the world's poorest countries, the potential of $53 billion of debt reduction. In this year alone, that is freeing $1.7 billion that would otherwise have been spent on interest payments but can now be spent on, for instance, education and health.
  The Bill will provide a legal framework that will support our development assistance by ensuring that the reduction of poverty is at the centre of politics in this country and in the world. I think that the House can be truly proud of what we have been able to achieve together so far. Progress has been made: we must acknowledge that, not least because it enables us to redouble our efforts to make further progress. What we have done is a start, but it is what we have yet to do that will really make a difference.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 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 International Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of this Act;

  (b) any sums required by him for fulfilling any guarantee given under this Act;

  (c) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act; and

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.— [Mr. McNulty.]

  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Political and Social Clubs
  10 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Members of political clubs, social clubs and other clubs in my constituency have expressed concern about their financial viability. This petition comes from the five remaining Labour clubs in my constituency; they are the Farnworth and Kearsley Labour Club, the Derby Ward Labour Club, the Rumworth Labour Club and Institute Ltd., the Dixon Green Labour club, and the Bradford Ward Labour Club and Institute. Unfortunately, Little Lever Labour Club closed recently because of financial problems. The petition of members of non-profit-making members' clubs in south-east Bolton
  "Declares that recommendation 70 of the Report of the Gambling Review Body chaired by Sir Alan Budd, which was presented to the House on 17th July 2001, recommends that jackpot machines should be removed from private clubs; and that this recommendation will, if enacted, place non-profit making members' clubs under such financial pressure that they may be forced to close.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons not pass any legislation which will entail the removal of jackpot machines from non-profit making members' clubs.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Equal Value Pay Claims
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  10.1 pm
  Andy Burnham: The Equal Pay Act 1970 is a landmark piece of legislation and one of the most progressive measures passed in the House in the last century. It enshrines in law a simple moral principle: that all human beings should be treated the same on the basis of their merits and rewarded on the quality of their work alone. I am proud of the fact that it was the Labour party in government that passed that principle into law and of how it has helped to build a fairer and more equal society in Britain.
  Today the principle is taken for granted, but it was not always thus. A measure of how times have moved on and of the success of the Act in changing attitudes and practices is that any young person entering the labour market today would find it almost unthinkable that there was a time when that principle was not the norm. People have come to understand both the social and the business case in respect of women's incomes over their lifetimes. If employers do not pay women fairly, it is more difficult for them to retain and motivate their staff. If women receive unequal pay, they are less able to make provision for their old age through pensions and savings and therefore more likely to be dependent on the state.
  In 1970, however, the practices in setting pay belonged to a different era. That was perhaps nowhere better illustrated than in the coal mining industry. One of the biggest claims brought under the Equal Pay Act 1970—if not the biggest—was initiated by the National Union of Mineworkers on behalf of women canteen workers and cleaning staff at collieries across the country Soon after the Act was introduced in 1973, two canteen workers brought a successful equal pay claim against the National Coal Board. On the back of that, many canteen workers were encouraged to submit similar claims
  It was not until 1983 that the possibility of securing redress for women working throughout the mining industry really opened up, with a ruling from the European Court of Justice that had to be incorporated in British law. It extended the scope of the Act to cover equal pay for work of equal value. Between December 1985 and April 1988, nearly 1,300 canteen workers and cleaning staff from 47 different establishments across the country submitted equal value claims, comparing their work to that of 150 male colleagues who were employed either as clerical workers or surface mine workers, including bath attendants, laundry workers and maintenance staff.
  Many of the claimants worked at pits in my constituency, including Parsonage and Woodend in Leigh, Bickershaw and Golborne, and also at Anderton House in Lowton, the north-west regional headquarters of the National Coal Board. Others worked at nearby Parkside colliery in Newton-le-Willows, Astley Green, Chanters, Mossley Common and Maines.
  John Mann: In addition to the cases cited by my hon. Friend, I gathered information about 124 others last week as a result of meetings that I held in my constituency. I note that no Conservative Member is
  340
  present for the debate. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking my hon. Friend the Minister to consider all those cases, so that the problems inherited by the coal industry can be sorted out once and for all? In that way, we can look forward to the future use of coal and the development of our areas, rather than having our surgeries full of cases from the past that have not been remedied yet.
  Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I look forward to meeting the coach-load of people from Bassetlaw who will come down to the House to join us in raising this matter.
  It was not until May 1996 that the breakthrough came, when the House of Lords ruled in favour of the claimants and the NUM. The Lords rejected British Coal's argument that the male comparators were not valid because of the lack of standard terms and conditions across the industry.
  Because the Equal Pay Act 1970 requires that claims be pursued by individuals, however, it was expected that each case would have to be referred back to an industrial tribunal. That process would have been extremely time consuming and bureaucratic, and an agreement was reached between the union and the Labour Government on a compensation package.
  According to the terms of that package, women who had lodged valid claims would receive £1,000 for each year of full-time work, and part-time workers would receive a pro rata payment. As a result, more than 1,000 women have received substantial payments, many of them in the region of £10,000.
  It took 16 years from start to finish to resolve the matter, but a combination of the efforts of the individual claimants, the NUM and Labour in government succeeded in using the 1970 Act to bring redress to almost 1,300 underpaid women. That is worth celebrating, but my purpose in this debate is to raise the issue of the estimated 2,600 women—almost twice the number who have so far received redress—who, although they worked in the same places, did the same jobs and were paid the same money, did not receive anything.
  Ms Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that people from Stoke-on-Trent and the north Staffordshire coalfield, and from mining areas all over the country, also fall into the category of those who have received no redress in this matter?
  Andy Burnham: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I am not talking only about people working in the Lancashire coalfield. Many hon. Members present tonight represent constituencies in the east midlands and the coalfield areas of Yorkshire.
  Rachel Squire: And Scotland.
  Andy Burnham: Yes. In recent weeks I have been contacted by about 30 people who fall into the category of those who have received nothing. The reasons for that are many and various. Some registered claims that were rejected at industrial tribunal, often because of the time limit set down by the 1970 Act. Some claimants registered for equal pay claims in the 1970s, and had assumed that their names would carry over automatically to any later claims. Some people—especially the more elderly—only found out last year that they were eligible to make a claim at all.

  341
  To show how the circumstances of each individual vary, and to explain why I do not think that many people can be blamed for failing to lodge a claim, I shall spend some time recording the working experiences of three constituents who have contacted me. It is important that the House should have a clear idea of the difficult nature of the work that they undertook, and of the pay that they received.
  My constituent Brenda Worsfold worked at Parsonage colliery between 1978 and 1981, at Bickershaw colliery between 1981 and 1985. and at both pits between 1990 and 1992. In her final job, she would rise at a quarter to five, travel to work on her own, open up the kitchen and begin to provide breakfast, and then lunch, for 30 to 40 surface workers. Mrs. Worsfold was paid £66.21 for 20 hours' work a week. She remembers signing a form to allow her name to go forward, but no record of that could be found.
  Mrs. Margaret Hughes of Lowton worked as a cleaner at Anderton house, Lowton, for 22 years between 1966 and 1988. When she was made redundant, she was receiving about £38 a week for 15 hours' work a week. Because of the number of hours that she and other colleagues worked, they received redundancy packages far inferior to those given to the men employed at Anderton House when it was closed. A case was brought to an industrial tribunal, but it fell because of the delay in registering the claim.
  Mrs. Alice Kelly of Golborne worked in the canteen at Parkside and Golborne collieries from 1973 to 1983. She worked 40 hours a week, often starting at 5.30am passing her husband in the hallway as he came in from the night shift. She was never paid more than £100 a week. She left work to look after her husband full-time because, like so many other miners, he had succumbed to ill health, so she was no longer at work when people were being encouraged to submit equal value claims. It was not until last year that Mrs. Kelly heard about the possibility of making such a claim.
  Although 1,300 people have made claims—make no mistake, that is very welcome—2,600 women have not. For every three people working alongside each other in a colliery canteen, one has received up to £10,000 while two others have received nothing. It is a cruel irony that legislation intended to secure fair and equal treatment for all people has led to such unfairness and unequal treatment.
  In many cases, it was the older people who had been working the longest and had just retired, like my constituent Mrs. Kelly, who received nothing. Nearly all the people who have contacted me have been at pains to stress that those were difficult times, and the backdrop to the claims being pursued was one of great upheaval in the British mining industry—and, by extension, in communities such as ours which were dependent on that industry. For that reason, nobody can be surprised that many valid claims could not be lodged within the time limits laid down in the Act.
  In considering how to move things forward, it is important to keep those exceptional circumstances in mind. In my constituency at least, the mining industry was coming to an end. The establishments and the jobs in question no longer exist. That brings me to my central point. The rights and wrongs of the issue will continue to be raked over, but it all boils down to the inadequacy of
  342
  the Equal Pay Act as a mechanism for providing redress to a whole group of people throughout an entire industry who were underpaid for work of the same value as that of their male colleagues.
  There are two particular problems. The first is the six-month time limit after termination of employment for lodging claims. The second is the requirement that every case be pursued by an individual. That, by definition, means that the Act is poorly equipped to address systematic underpayment across a whole industry. To achieve the objectives of the Act and fulfil its principles, it would have made much more sense for a class action to be brought.
  I know that the Government have been keeping equal pay, and the working of the Equal Pay Act, under close scrutiny. I understand that on 5 December there will be an equal pay summit, where further consideration will be given to how the pay gap can be eradicated for good. I ask the Minister to ensure that the experiences and issues that I have touched on tonight are raised at that summit, and that some consideration is given to the problems in this case and to preventing them from happening again in the future. That would at least give some comfort to the people affected, and some recognition of what they have been through.
  I hope that we can still go further and explore whether there is a way of making a gesture to the people concerned, in recognition of the moral principle so clearly at stake in this case. Nobody doubts that thousands of women were underpaid for work that they undertook in the 1970s and 1980s. Some recompense in recognition of that would be entirely in keeping with the spirit of the Equal Pay Act, and would be justified, given the exceptional circumstances of the time.
  I am grateful for having had the opportunity to raise this important issue tonight, and place on the record the experiences of my constituents. It may seem obscure to some, but I assure the House that it matters a great deal to the people who have lived through every stage of it.
  As a new Member of Parliament I have come to the issue late, but I know that it has involved Members from coalfield communities throughout Britain. I am pleased to see in the House tonight so many Members who represent those communities.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Selby (Mr. Grogan), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) have pursued this issue assiduously for many years, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) since they were elected. Their efforts, I know, have been much appreciated by the people involved. I hope that the Minister will ask the Minister for Industry and Energy whether he will meet us all soon to discuss further some of the issues I have raised tonight.
  The Government have already done a great deal to help mining communities. Progress is being made with the miners' compensation scheme. We welcome the work done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and the positive developments that he announced last week.

  343
  Earlier today, the Prime Minister referred to the £1.5 billion being invested in helping mining communities towards a better future. My hon. Friends and I are extremely grateful for that continued help and commitment, and will keep on working with the Government for the betterment of the people and the communities we represent.
  10.16 pm
  The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on securing this debate, on bringing the issue before the House and on the eloquent way in which he set out the case. This is an important issue, which deserves attention, and I am not surprised that more than 20 Labour Members are here at this late hour.
  I fully understand the strength of feeling in coalfield communities around the United Kingdom. The issue has a long history; it is surrounded by a great deal of confusion in some areas. My hon. Friend set out the case very clearly, but if he will allow me I will go over some of the points from the Government's perspective, to ensure that we have clearly placed on record what has happened.
  The issue arose in the early 1980s. Originally, certain British Coal women workers, mainly cleaning and canteen staff, lodged claims under the Equal Pay Act 1970 which required like pay for like work. Those claims proved unsuccessful and, in the event, British Coal won the litigation. The 1970 Act was amended so that claims could be made on an equal value basis. Subsequently, the majority of those women who had lodged the earlier claims went on to lodge equal value claims.
  In all, about 1,300 women lodged claims at the employment tribunal between 1986 and 1992. The Act, as amended, enabled the women to seek compensation if they could show that they were being paid less than men in comparable jobs. British Coal initially resisted this on the ground that the legislation did not apply to its situation. The arguments about the legal technicalities went on for many years, culminating in hearings in the Court of Appeal and the other place.
  The eventual ruling on the issues of legal interpretation went against the British Coal arguments, clearing the way for a consideration of the merits of the individual claims of comparability. Recognising the complexities that that involved, the courts encouraged the parties to settle the matter without recourse to further proceedings, and on a broad-brush basis. The members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers settled at an early stage, and a number of members of the National Union of Mineworkers subsequently settled as well. However, the NUM urged the majority of its members not to settle.
  A deal to settle the claims was finally brokered in April this year by the then Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain). Under that agreement, all the women with valid claims stood to receive settlements based on length of service. The average settlement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, was about £10,000. It was also agreed that those who had accepted British Coal's earlier offer would receive top-up payments ensuring that all those eligible would receive settlements on the same basis.
  344
  The issue raised by my hon. Friend relates to the position of women whose claims were not registered in accordance with the legislation. The legal position is clear: the terms of the Equal Pay Act impose a time limit on bringing a claim before an employment tribunal of six months from the termination of employment. There is no discretion to extend that limit.
  My hon. Friend suggested that that element of the Act should be reviewed in future. I am thinking on my feet, but in some respects such a review might be sensible; in future we should perhaps reconsider that provision. However, the law as it stands allows no discretion: anyone who fails to register a claim in the employment tribunal system within six months of termination of employment does not have a legally valid claim to equal-value pay under the terms of the Act, and is not eligible for a payment.
  Jeff Ennis: There are 84 women canteen workers in my constituency who fall into that invalid claim category and I have been in constant correspondence with them. I have received pro formas from 68 of those former canteen workers, 53 of whom tell me that they never realised that they could make a claim. Surely, if people never knew or realised that they could make a claim, it is natural justice that they should be considered for compensation under the Equal Pay Act.
  Alan Johnson: I appreciate that point, and shall talk about some of the individual cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Leigh. However, both the UDM and the NUM would have been well aware of the equal value rules and of the procedures to be followed under the Act. As in all such matters, it was their responsibility to keep their members informed, although obviously that is no comfort to the individuals involved.
  Jeff Ennis: But of 68 claimants, 20 were not members of a trade union, 34 were in the NUM and 11 were in other trade unions. It is not merely a question of trade union membership: we should treat all the former canteen workers equitably whether they are trade union members or not.
  Alan Johnson: I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will appreciate that we have all heard of many cases of claims that were submitted after the six months—there is no discretion to extend the current terms of the Equal Pay Act.
  I can understand the consternation of women who find themselves in that position. There may be a variety of reasons why they did not register a claim: my hon. Friend has just mentioned one. Some of them may not have been informed that it was possible to make a claim; others may have been let down by people acting on their behalf. I do not want to comment on the avenues that might be available to pursue claims against such advisers or agents. However, the point at which fateful actions were taken—or, more likely, not taken—will usually have been many years ago.
  The case that has been put to the Government by several of my hon. Friends recognises those facts. The suggestion has been made that the Government, standing behind the British Coal Corporation, should make some

  345
  form of ex gratia payment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I point out that the corporation itself, although still in existence, has neither the resources nor the statutory powers to make such payments.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has given those requests considerable thought. Having done so, however, he has concluded that it is not possible to pay money on such a large number of claims that have turned up more than a decade late. To make an exception of that group and to pay out on what are now invalid claims would be grossly unfair to all the other people who have had similar claims disqualified under the tribunal system on the grounds of time barring.
  Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made one simple request of the Minister: that he would meet us as a group to discuss the problem and consider a way forward. Will my hon. Friend accede to that request?
  Alan Johnson: I shall return to that point in a moment, before we run out of time.
  I stress that if the unregistered claims had been lodged in a timely manner, the problem would not have arisen and much anxiety would have been avoided. Nevertheless, we are in the situation that we are in, and I hope that I have made it clear that the position that we have adopted is not one that we have taken lightly. It is not the case that my Department is unwilling to meet its responsibilities. The fact that we will be paying out on settlements worth around £14 million is ample evidence of that. What was promised is being delivered to all the women with valid claims, and to the NUM. Moreover, we continue to make every effort to locate those women with valid claims who have either not come forward or up to now are not traceable, in order that they can get what they are entitled to. I am pleased to report that, at the end of October, more than 90 per cent. of the registered cases had been settled.
  None of this is any comfort, of course, to those women who do not have valid registered claims.
  Rob Marris: We have arrived at this situation after many years. I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance to take legal advice on whether the lack of discretion in the six-month time limit puts us outwith European legislation, in particular article 118, and if so whether any moves will be made to amend domestic legislation with regard to equal treatment.
  Alan Johnson: I am not in a position to answer that question, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will be at the meeting that I shall refer to in a second.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister saying that special cases of any kind have never been made in
  346
  employment law? I would just remind him about GCHQ. If it is a question of money—I do not think it is—just remember that the Government are taking half of the additional pensions that accrued over many years, and we are talking there about loads of money. I hope that the Minister will look at the ex gratia solution.
  Alan Johnson: There have been ex gratia payments. As far as I am aware, we have never dealt with claims registered outside the six-month limit at employment tribunals in any different way, because to do so would affect all those people whose claims were debarred in the past.
  Caroline Flint: A number of women in my constituency did not have their claim registered because they were not represented properly by their trade union. I understand that the NUM was given a sum of money to cover its costs, and asked for that not to be disclosed. Is it not about time that we knew what money it received? If it was at fault, it should pay the women itself.
  Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend raises a point that I am not equipped to answer, but there is a question mark about how the claims were dealt with, not just by the NUM but by the UDM.
  We have an obligation to secure fairness of treatment between different groups of possible applicants under the legislation working for different employers in different industries who do not have valid claims. Applying that test of fairness, there is no basis on which we could justify special treatment for this group of ex-British Coal employees. I know that that is difficult for those involved and difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh to accept. He has been a skilled and vociferous advocate for them, as have other colleagues, but it would be cruel to hold out false promises when the issue has been examined in great detail. Nevertheless, I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has already agreed to a meeting next week. That will be a better forum than here, where we are time-limited and there is not the same opportunity to exchange the detailed points that the issue requires.
  So I can confirm on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy that he will meet interested Members of Parliament next week. We can then go through the issue in more detail. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friends and the House will recognise that this is an important issue. We have looked at it carefully. We do not take these decisions lightly, but we do not currently believe that there is any basis for offering false hope to the women whose plight has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Gibraltar
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]
9.30am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing this important debate to take place. I also thank the Minister and shadow Minister for attending and the Minister for answering the questions that will be raised.
The purpose of the debate is to discuss the future of Gibraltar and in particular its sovereignty. Members will be aware of the appropriate timing of the debate, as talks are continuing between the British and Spanish Governments about Gibraltar. I hope that the debate will provide the opportunity for clarification of the Government's plans, as well as assurances about the future sovereignty of Gibraltar.
The 30,000 people of Gibraltar are United Kingdom citizens, who have been loyal for almost 300 years. Their loyalty should never be questioned. At all times, during both world wars and when we were engaged in the Falklands and the Gulf, Gibraltar has supported the British armed forces. We should never forget what they have given on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Let me ask some questions. Which country has a border-crossing procedure that takes a minimum of one and a half hours, at all times of day on every day of the year? Which country prevents UK military flights from overflying its airspace, although both countries are members of NATO? Which country provides reduced security for British citizens by denying them participation in the open skies agreement and related security provisions? Which country refuses further telephone connections to restrict the economic development of Gibraltar? Which country actively campaigned to restrict its neighbour from joining UEFA and even stopped judges from attending a dog show? Which country refuses to accept that people should have the right to determine their own future? Which country stops cruise ships from sailing to its neighbour; they have to go to a neutral port? Which country stops a ferry crossing the straights from Algeciras?
I am not referring to some tin-pot south American dictatorship, based on fascism; I am talking about Spain in the 21st century and its relationship with Gibraltar. Both belong to the European Union. The citizens of Gibraltar are naturally concerned about the outcome of discussions between the British and Spanish Governments. After all, we are dealing with their future and their right to self-determination.
The Minister has visited Gibraltar and is aware of the feelings of its people. I hope that he will keep their views at the forefront of all discussions with his Spanish counterparts. I commend the Minister on his work and on his determination to work with the Spanish to solve
70WH
various issues, alongside my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. That needs to continue. Dialogue is important. I always tell people that discussions cost nothing; they are important and are a way forward. We cannot continue to allow anomalies to exist.
The uncertainty of change always causes anxiety but that has only been made worse by the actions of the Spanish Government, who continue to pursue their claim to Gibraltar. Why does Spain have a claim? The British have been in Gibraltar for almost 300 years, but the Spanish were there for only a couple of hundred years before that. Gibraltar belonged to the moors before that and Spain did not even exist. One could argue that Spain has the least claim over Gibraltar. Britain, however, did exist. Dutch marines and the Royal Marines fought in Gibraltar. The Royal Marines who will be going into Afghanistan carry Gibraltar on their crest. It is their most famous battle and it is silly for people to deny that.
We should recognise that Gibraltar has been British for 300 years since the treaty of Utrecht and its people have developed a clear sense of identity, with their own culture and heritage, as part of the United Kingdom. The territory is economically self-sufficient with an economy based mainly on tourism, ship repairing, port activities and financial services. The armed forces are there as well. We should remember that Gibraltar's industries are a major employer in southern Spain. Those using the border crossing are generally people from Spain going to work in Gibraltar rather than vice versa. Gibraltar has helped to ensure that that underdeveloped part of Spain has become economically more sound.
As Members will be aware, Gibraltar is also a full member of the EU, having entered as part of the UK in 1973. The people of Gibraltar value the political stability that membership of the EU brings which, unfortunately, is not being delivered. Given Gibraltar's membership of the EU, it is difficult to comprehend the actions taken by the Spanish, which are often extremely damaging to Gibraltar and its citizens. The Minister is well aware of such actions and although I do not want to spend too much time on the matter, it is necessary to remind the House of the appalling conduct of Spain. There are continual delays at the border, in clear violation of the EU freedom of movement laws. Spain refuses to recognize Gibraltar's telephone dialling code, which means that Gibraltar has run out of new telephone numbers. The Gibraltarians cannot create more numbers because of Spain.
Spain forbids Spanish operators from signing mobile roaming agreements with Gibraltar, so Gibraltarian mobile phones do not work in Spain in clear breach of EU competition rules. Spain has taken active steps to disfranchise Gibraltarians by taking the UK to court to prevent us including Gibraltar in European parliamentary elections. Continuous attempts have been made to damage Gibraltar's status as a finance centre with allusions to money laundering, which does not occur there. The case that the Government of Gibraltar are not in charge of the policing of Gibraltar can also be refuted. The Governor is in charge of policing, but the myth that he is not continues to be sustained by Spain, along with that of Gibraltar's involvement in drug running. Why would a smuggler want to smuggle drugs into Gibraltar and have to smuggle them back over a border that has one and a half

71WH
hour queues? Why would he not just smuggle them into Spain? It should be recognised that Spain is the route for most drugs.
Spain should he careful. The Spanish should examine the sale of property along the Costa del Sol, as people are cashing in their currencies before euros are introduced. Spain ought to wonder where that money is coming from and consider allegations closer to home rather than making allegations against the financial institutions in Gibraltar. We must not forget that those institutions operate under the rules of the City of London, which have been tightened and strengthened by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We have to talk about the prohibition of air and maritime links between Gibraltar and Spain, as well as Spain's obstruction of Gibraltar's participation in international sporting federations. When considering such examples it is little wonder that Gibraltarians are anxious about talks between the two Governments over the future of their country.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I come from an area where we have similar problems. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Gibraltar understand the use of the word sovereignty but are a little concerned that the sharing of the sovereignty of Gibraltar with Spain is more in the mind of some of our representatives than Gibraltarians would want?
Mr. Hoyle: I know that there is concern about that. I believe, and the Minister has stated clearly, that the future of Gibraltar should not be decided over the heads of the people of Gibraltar, who have the right to self-determination.
Fears will have been made worse by recent press speculation about secret deals and in particular the comments made by Josep Pique, the Spanish Foreign Minister, that the British Government should not give the people of Gibraltar the right to vote on any matter involving sovereignty during discussions on Gibraltar's future and that they should be ignored when a decision is taken.
I find it difficult to believe that a country such as Spain, which is young in democratic terms and has come out of a dictatorship, which has seen fascism and gone through many years without the right to vote, refuses to recognize the rights of 30,000 citizens of Gibraltar to determine their own future. One must question whether that is hypocrisy. People may say that Gibraltar is part of a colonial past of which we should rid ourselves, but Spain's hypocrisy lies in the fact that the people of Ceuta and Melilla, two enclaves in north Africa that are not even on the same continent as Spain, are given full European Union rights. No one seems bothered about that.
If people want overseas territories to be modernised. let us please let that happen. Let us get away from some of the old colonial pressures. Let us consider what France has done in incorporating French New Guinea, Corsica and its other overseas territories, as Spain has done and as has been done in the Dutch West Indies. There is a model for us to consider. The British
72WH
Government have decided on a different model, but neither is wrong. We must respect the wishes of people in overseas territories and those who are democratically elected should have respect for the people of Gibraltar. We must never lose sight of that. Thankfully, the Minister who is responding to the debate today has fought for and recognises democracy and will never give up on it.
We should remember Spain's hypocrisy, and the fact that the Canary islands are further from Madrid than Gibraltar is from London. Spain must recognise that it should treat the people of Gibraltar in the same way as it treats people in its own overseas territories.
Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is right to contrast the way in which the Canary islands and Gibraltar are treated. The Canary islands have received enormous amounts of EU aid, new roads and airports and coastal defences, which sharply contrasts with the aid that Gibraltar is not receiving, although it is a full member of the EU and the Canary islands are associate members.
Mr. Hoyle: That is right. The two enclaves in north Africa are treated in the same way—this debate concerns how overseas territories are treated. Spain's actions towards Gibraltar and its unwillingness to recognize the right to self-determination of the Gibraltarians are not the actions of a responsible member of the EU. I am aware that Spain is a useful ally in the EU on many other matters, but in relation to Gibraltar I am afraid that this is not the case.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Would the hon. Gentleman accept a solution that made Gibraltar, like the Canary islands, an autonomous region of Spain? Is that what he is suggesting?
Mr. Hoyle: I believe in democracy and the rights of the people of Gibraltar to self-determination. A new Member of this House who has just been democratically elected should recognise that fact—and a trade union member should too, as many people in Gibraltar are members of the Transport and General Workers' union.
Given the concerns of the people of Gibraltar and the concerns that I and fellow hon. Members have, it is essential that the Minister provides certain assurances before further discussions and before decisions are taken. First, and most importantly, does the Minister agree that sovereignty is not negotiable without the consent of the people? I am aware of previous statements on this matter, but it is essential to clarify the point. Despite the views of the Spanish Government, no decision regarding sovereignty can be taken without a referendum.
Secondly, the Gibraltar Government must have their own voice at talks regarding the future of Gibraltar. If the Government of Gibraltar decide to go, they should have their own voice—the decision is for the Chief Minister to take. Those two assurances will guarantee the people of Gibraltar a voice in discussions on their future. They should have nothing less. Indeed, they should have the final say in determining their future. The problem is that the Foreign Office has sought to make it

73WH
impossible for Gibraltar to attend the talks. That is no good for anyone and will not help to move the debate on.
I am sure that the Minister will look favourably on my requests and is working to ensure that future talks reach an amiable agreement. It might be a little more difficult to convince the Spanish Government to adhere to those requests, but I am sure that our Ministers will persuade them.
I have made my views clear. The Minister is aware of the views and feelings of the citizens of Gibraltar, which I ask him to represent in talks with the Spanish. I hope that he will guarantee that the people of Gibraltar are treated fairly and have the right to determine their future. That will end the anomalies that allow UK citizens to be treated so badly. We should look after the people of the UK, but we seem to have forgotten the loyalty of the 30,000 UK passport holders in Gibraltar.
9.45 am
Sir Teddy Taylor: I want to make a simple point. I have no special knowledge of foreign affairs, but I have the pleasure of regularly going on holiday to Gibraltar. My wife and daughter went there recently while I was working hard in politics here.
The Minister should be aware of the uncertainty in Gibraltar, which is a great worry. In the past, people always said, "Britain's okay, it's strong, it will never sell us out." Now, there is growing uncertainty and when people discover that I am a Member of Parliament, they ask me what is going on, because things seem to be happening in the background.
Feelings in Gibraltar are abundantly clear. As the Minister well knows, a referendum has shown an astonishing 98 per cent. support for retaining connections with the United Kingdom, so there is no doubt about the level of commitment. I have respected the Minister over the years and have always regarded him as sound, sensible and straightforward, particularly on European issues. I do not mean to disrespect the Labour party or to say that no other Labour Members are like that, but there are people in all parties whom one can trust and I have always regarded the Minister as straight, honourable and decent. I have been staggered by his recent comments, however, which conflict not only with reality but with his earlier comments. There might be a good reason for that: he might have come across facts and issues of which I am not fully aware, or which I am not intelligent enough to understand. However, he will understand that people are worried and are asking, "Is something funny going on?"
We should also remember that Spain is a major recipient of European Economic Community funding and it annoys people in Gibraltar that they get nothing even though they suffer considerable stress, worry, unemployment and misery.
I could go on for a long time, but I and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who made an excellent speech, believe that there is only one thing for the Government to say: no constitutional change must be made unless the people of Gibraltar want it.
What worries me most about the EEC—it used to worry the Minister—is that democracy does not matter a damn and that the views of the people do not count. I
74WH
had the pleasure of being in Germany when people were talking about joining this single currency business and I met no one who wanted it. It seemed that the whole German community opposed it, but the politicians were for it. To that extent, the views of the people did not matter at all. People come to my surgery almost every week to ask about things that worry them, such as the export of live cattle or the amount that the EU spends on growing high-tar tobacco that it dumps in the third world, or even about the age of homosexual consent. People are worried about those things, but when they discuss them they have to be told, "I'm terribly sorry. Your MPs do not matter." Then they say, "Well, can we go to the European Parliament?" The answer to that is, "There is no point because, if the European Parliament closed its doors tomorrow, no one would notice apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg."
What can we say to the people of Gibraltar? We must tell them, "Your views matter. It is not a question of Ministers meeting in secret with representatives of the European Union to come to a dirty deal and sell you out." If that were to happen, my faith in British democracy and the British system of government would disappear. There is an easy answer. The Minister need not present complex arguments about his dealings over borders and about how things can be improved. He should simply tell us that the views of the people of Gibraltar, and nothing else, are what matter to Britain. After all, it is their place. They live there and their views are what matter.
Many of Britain's great problems, which Governments of all parties have faced, could have been overcome if we had simply had the decency and integrity to treat the views of the people as what counted. Without that clear message, the uncertainty in Gibraltar will continue.
Mr. Mark Francois: My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour linked events in Gibraltar and the democratic deficit in the European Union. Does he accept that there is no question of a democratic deficit in Gibraltar if 98 per cent. of its population have made it crystal clear in a referendum that they want to retain their links with the United Kingdom?
Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. It is a pleasure and honour to have him as a neighbour. He will make a splendid contribution to democracy. Something that worries me about getting old is who will defend democracy when I fade away, but the presence of my hon. Friend tells me that I need not worry and can relax.
Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is more likely to go out with a bang.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I did not hear that. I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman does not speak very clearly. He must come from somewhere—[Interruption.]
We want a simple message to be given to the people of Gibraltar: that their views count and nothing will happen without their agreement. If we cannot send that message and do not think that the views of the people count, there is no point in pretending that we are a democracy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley on requesting the debate and on his honest, fair

75WH
assessment of the situation. I hope that we can all agree on a new popular front—that nothing but democracy and the views of the people of Gibraltar will count in deciding this issue.
9.52 am
Margaret Moran: In a recent parliamentary question I asked the Foreign Secretary whether it was right, in 2001, that we should maintain the anachronism of what is effectively an outpost colony within a major European partner. I stand by my view, despite having since received several insulting e-mails. If their tone indicates the standard of debate about Gibraltar and its relations with the United Kingdom and Spain, that is depressing.
We need to examine how to bring about positive relations between the countries concerned. That does not mean taking the view that there will never be any change with respect to Gibraltar. However, the context of the debate needs to be made clear. The previous two speakers rightly maintained the need for democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) made clear, the Government stand by the commitment to the people of Gibraltar that was set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution, which enshrines the principle of the consent of the people of Gibraltar to any change in sovereignty. On the need for democracy in Gibraltar, the Government stand by the preamble to the constitution. That is the context for our debate. Those who would raise doubts in the minds of the people of Gibraltar about the Government stance on the constitution do no service to them or our relations with Spain.
Mr. Alan Duncan: How can the hon. Lady say that Gibraltar is a colonial outpost when Britain does not tell the Gibraltarians what to do? The Gibraltarians say what they want to do themselves. Does she accept that Gibraltarians are a legitimate democratic unit and are entitled to express their views and have their wishes followed and understood?
Margaret Moran: Obviously, the Government's commitment means that the Gibraltarians will have the opportunity to give their views. That is set out in the constitution and the Government stand by it.
The dispute has effectively raged since 1713 and it cannot continue until 2002 or 2050 without a resolution. The talks are nothing new. A recent article by Geoffrey Howe, previously a Conservative Foreign Secretary, made it clear that some of the discussions have gone on in detail for 17 years.
Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that Spain's two enclaves in north Africa ought to be the model used for Gibraltar?
Margaret Moran: It would be ill-advised of us to try to pre-determine the outcome of any discussions, as many hon. Members have said. The Gibraltarian people should debate with Spain and the United Kingdom how to achieve a better future for Gibraltar.
76WH
Having said that the constitutional commitment has been reaffirmed, I think it important that we move forward. Geoffrey Howe's discussions started 17 years ago with Fernando Moran—he is not a relative of mine—and appeared to make progress. However, they were halted once again. It is now time that we modernised our relationship with Gibraltar and Spain and put the discussions back on track. We need a vision for the future of Gibraltar rather than constant reference to its history.
Gibraltar needs to capitalise on its natural strengths, by which I do not mean only tourism and the naval base. Increasingly, it is a regional financial services centre. Its business links can be further advanced through more positive relations with the UK and Spain.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I noted carefully that the hon. Lady said that we needed a vision for the future of Gibraltar, but that is not so. The people of Gibraltar have a vision for the future of their country and we must support them.
Margaret Moran: We are all party to the future of Gibraltar, and "we" includes the people of Gibraltar. It is important that we have a collective vision of how we can enhance Gibraltar's natural opportunities, its business links, its sharing of a common language and law system with us and its reputation for sound regulation. More positive relations with the UK and Spain could further enhance those opportunities. It is important that we recognise the possibility of developing Gibraltar airport, which could bring further economic and commercial benefits to the people of Gibraltar and those in neighbouring regions of Spain.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I apologise for missing the start of the debate.
As someone who has visited Gibraltar several times, both as a Member of Parliament and before I was one, I know that its people have a clear vision of what they want to do and of the economic and social developments that the hon. Lady talks about. However, their neighbour, Spain, increasingly frustrates them from achieving their ambitions. Surely this Government and Parliament should encourage Spain to allow them to seek and fulfil their destiny.
Margaret Moran: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and it is precisely the argument that I am trying to advance. We cannot resolve some of the problems articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley unless there is a more positive dialogue and relationship between Spain and this country. That would end some of the disadvantages that Gibraltarians suffer in their everyday lives—for example, the restrictions on flights and telephones and the border queues. We shall not resolve issues such as the border delays, which are unfair and unwarranted, simply by banging the table or threatening legal action which would be long drawn out and uncertain. Spain can be compelled to change the border regime, but we shall achieve that only through dialogue and more positive relations.

77WH
Gibraltar needs to show more imagination. We have within our grasp the opportunity to end 300 years of what in some circles would be called Spanish harassment and the colonial trappings of the relationship with the United Kingdom. We should try to maximise that opportunity. Surely, Gibraltarians would be interested in new arrangements that would bring about good relations with Spain and greater self-government for Gibraltar, giving them a greater say in their own affairs. That must be a positive way forward for Gibraltar.
Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Lady accept that the Government of Gibraltar have always been willing to talk to the Government of Spain? Does she agree—it is important that she is precise about this—that the people of Gibraltar are entitled to the United Nations right of self-determination? Will she give a yes or no answer?
Margaret Moran: I—[Interruption.] I was astonished by the question. Of course, the people of Gibraltar are entitled to United Nations—[Interruption.] The fact of the matter is that we understand the concerns of the Gibraltarian people. Britain's commitment to Gibraltarians makes their participation in the dialogue not only essential but safe. They have that safeguard for their constitution. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said that Gibraltar will speak to Spain. I hope that that will be the case in the further discussions in November and that Mr. Caruana will be at those discussions so that there may be some progress, which is long overdue.
We recognise the need for Gibraltarians to see early evidence of the potential benefits of improved co-operation with Spain to build up faith in the dialogue process. The quid pro quo is that Spain needs to show greater flexibility, particularly on some of the problems, for example the ways in which Gibraltarians are hindered in going about their daily business. There must be some movement and early benefit to show Gibraltarians that there are real advantages in a more positive relationship with Spain.
It is not for us to dictate the new dispensation for Gibraltar. The constitutional commitment is clear: it is for Gibraltar to decide in a referendum. It is patronising to suggest that any option should be ruled out of talks before the people of Gibraltar have had a chance to consider the options on their merits. A veto on constitutional change is not a veto on any change whatever.
We acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about uncertainty in the dialogue process, but the Gibraltar Government need to be part of the dialogue and to be positive. It is important that the Chief Minister participates in the Brussels process. Britain and Spain respect the need for him to have a separate voice in the process and he is best placed to voice Gibraltar's interests and wishes. The way to resolve the longstanding disputes about the future of Gibraltar is through dialogue, particularly between friends and allies. We seek a positive future and look to the opportunities that dialogue presents. We must focus not on the history of Gibraltar, but on a new vision of a European future in which it has positive relations with the UK and, in particular, with Spain.
10.5 am
Simon Hughes: I will be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak. That fact shows the importance and timeliness of today's debate. We should thank the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).
We can take it as read that all those present are loyal and committed to our country and to Gibraltar. That is what the people of Gibraltar deserve, because they have also shown loyalty and commitment in the past three centuries. Many of us also love Spain and take a positive view about the many wonderful developments that have occurred there since democracy returned. Spain is now a pluralist country with devolved power and different levels of government, such as in Catalonia.
The Minister knows that I respect him greatly, but I should tell him that the British Government have been very wobbly on this issue for far too long. There is no reason why we cannot have a perfectly good relationship with our friend and neighbour Spain, while saying, "On this issue, you have to move on. You must give up this old-fashioned, out-of-date, pre-democracy position." If we enter into talks in Barcelona on 20 November with the attitude that everything is up for negotiation and that we should start from the beginning and ignore history and if we let Spain assume that it can negotiate sovereignty, formal agreements such as the treaty of Utrecht and the result of the Gibraltar referendum will be betrayed. Such an attitude would also be entirely unrealistic in terms of our obligation to maintain the existing position.
We must make the Spanish Government understand that they have to behave as adult Europeans on this issue. They behave that way in all other respects, but they have never responded appropriately to the Gibraltar question, and they need to be given a clear message. Will the Government make it clear to Spain that, although Gibraltar is a colony, the right to self-determination prevails? Will the Minister confirm that it remains Government policy to allow the people of Gibraltar to decide their future and to have the right of self-determination? Will he also make it absolutely clear that newspaper reports in the past two months on the sharing of sovereignty are inaccurate? The Government and the people of Gibraltar need to be assured that that is not on the agenda, so that the issue can be put to one side. The Minister knows the constitutional problems that such a change would present.
Will the Minister also confirm that the gradual passing of control to Spain is not on the agenda? Of course, there should be talks on the nonsense of border controls, the telephone exchange and so on. As the hon. Member for Chorley pointed out, the argument that Spain consistently adopts is pretty rich, given its territorial position in north Africa.
Over the years, Gibraltar Governments have fully understood their obligations to the European Union, of which Gibraltar is a proud member. They have also understood their obligation to deal with past problems such as customs and excise and financial controls. They have responded by doing all that was asked of them and by taking on the burden of EU obligations.
However, in one regard, we have failed Gibraltarians completely, as the case of the Gibraltarian woman who obtained a European Court judgment demonstrated.

79WH
We failed to grant them their right to be full European Union citizens by failing to establish their right to vote in European elections. If the EU does not agree on how the matter should proceed, will the UK Government legislate in good time to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are granted their full right to participate in European elections?
Mr. Hoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is also a case for elections in Gibraltar resulting in representation in the House of Commons?
Simon Hughes: That is a perfectly proper option. In the first instance, I am keen to ensure that, in some way or other, the people of Gibraltar have a vote at the next European elections. The constituency to which they belong might be a matter for discussion, but the British Government should take the initiative.
I urge the Minister to show again the strength that he showed when he stood up for democracy in South Africa in his youth. He made many pronouncements from the Back Benches and, since becoming Minister for Europe, he has made many assertions about the importance of a modern, democratic Europe. I welcome him to the job, but he must do better than his predecessors, who gave Gibraltarians little consolation over the years. We need firm, clear and progressive views, not wobble.
10.10 am
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I commend the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for his stand against the desires of some to remove the rights of the people of Gibraltar. I also commend the work of Albert Poggio MBE and the Gibraltar Government office in London for their work to enable people in the United Kingdom, including Members of Parliament, to know the truth about the situation in Gibraltar.
I felt ashamed on hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran). What are we here to do if not to stand up for democracy? The reality is that the people of Gibraltar are being bullied, and have been for a long time. It is outrageous and completely unacceptable for us in the democratic Parliament of the United Kingdom to allow the people of Gibraltar to be treated in a way that none of us would allow our constituents to be treated.
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rosindell: Not at the moment.
Gibraltar's people are as British as the rest of us; they are loyal decent subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. Gibraltar is British, and its people want it to remain so. We owe them the same support and loyalty that they give to the United Kingdom.
I am pleased that the Minister for Europe is here. He has a reputation for standing up for democracy and human rights. I hope that he will continue to live up to that reputation by standing up for the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar, as he has done for peoples in other parts of the world. I was surprised to read a quote from the Minister in a recent newspaper article, in which
80WH
he talked about "normalising" the situation and getting the people of Gibraltar to "modernise" their thinking. What is more modern than to allow people to choose their own future and to decide their own destiny? That is what we are talking about for the people of Gibraltar. How can we talk of modernising something when democracy is what counts?
The hon. Member for Luton, South spoke of an anachronism, and about three countries. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. The people of Gibraltar are not the people of a third country; they are British and will remain so. Whatever people say and do and whatever the misunderstandings projected by hon. Members and others, the people of Gibraltar must be allowed to decide their own future.
I have visited Gibraltar many times, and I have also visited the Falkland Islands and Argentina. I have good relations with the Conservative party's sister parties in Spain and Argentina. I ask hon. Members who are sceptical about the rights of the people of Gibraltar to consider what has happened to the party in Argentina. It has adapted the way in which it handles matters to try to bring about better relations with the people of the Falkland Islands. To some extent, it has succeeded.
We should contrast that with the outrageous bullying tactics of successive Spanish Governments, including, shamefully, its current Government. Spain's Foreign Minister recently described Gibraltar as a parasite on the Spanish economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is scandalous that any British Government—if we had a Conservative Government, I would say the same—should for so long have allowed the people of Gibraltar to be treated in this shameful, unacceptable, undemocratic and bullying fashion by Spanish Governments.
Mr. Bryant: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who said during a previous debate on Gibraltar that"nothing is to be gained by bombast and megaphone diplomacy."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 119WH.]
We need a genuine debate, not talk of bullying, hypocrisy and similar nonsense.
Mr. Rosindell: That says it all. I am utterly astonished that any hon. Member could make such a ridiculous comment. Those of us who have come to the Chamber to speak up for the people of Gibraltar are not engaged in megaphone diplomacy—we are acting on behalf of people whose democratic rights are being denied to them by the Spanish Government. The hon. Member for Chorley described a whole range of unacceptable behaviour by that Government, who are supposed to represent a modern, democratic member of the European Union.
We should consider the situation on the border, where people have to wait for hours in appalling circumstances to get into Gibraltar. We should consider the Spanish Government's refusal to recognise the Gibraltar telephone code and their objection to Gibraltarians voting in European elections even though, for better or worse, they are part of the European Union and should

81WH
be entitled to vote in them. We should consider the open skies agreement, on which the Government, sadly, appear to have capitulated. Even sporting events are affected. Disgracefully, a dog show was disrupted. Such behaviour is outrageous, and cannot be justified by any Member of Parliament who claims to believe in any form of democracy. None of us should tolerate it for a moment longer.
I wish to convey my immense admiration to the people of Gibraltar for their steadfast refusal to buckle under the crude and illegal pressure placed on them by the Spanish Government. Gibraltar has been a sovereign British territory for 288 years, and the British people of Gibraltar are happy with that arrangement. The entire situation is underwritten in the treaty of Utrecht, which states that Gibraltar is to be
held and enjoyed absolutely by all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever"
by Great Britain. Meanwhile, Spain appears oblivious to the hypocrisy of its sovereignty over two less successful territories in Morocco, where it is doing the exact opposite of what it claims in respect of Gibraltar. How can that doublespeak be justified?
Later this month, discussions on Gibraltar's future will take place. There should be no such discussions. Why should we discuss the rights of British people? Would any of us discuss negotiating away the sovereignty of our constituents? We would never do so. If we were to do so, we would not deserve to be Members of Parliament. The people of Gibraltar should be given the same rights as our constituents. They should be able to vote in all elections, including elections to the House of Commons, and they should have equal rights across the board. How can anyone disagree with that proposal?
It is time that we had a consistent approach to not only Gibraltar and the Falklands, but all our overseas territories. I hope that the Minister will take that on board when we discuss the British Overseas Territories Bill. All overseas territories want to remain sovereign under the Crown. They want to remain connected with the United Kingdom, and their inhabitants should have the same rights as the rest of our people. I hope that that point will be considered in the British Overseas Territories Bill. Every British person, wherever they may be, should have the right to choose a representative and to vote in elections to the House. That is what democracy is all about.
I am saddened by the need for this debate. Spain, which proclaims itself to be a modern democracy, is not prepared to treat British territory in the way that it would treat any other part of the European Union. I appeal to our allies in Spain, Britain's friend, to reconsider its attitude and approach, which has achieved nothing. Its approach has caused a great deal of upset and heartache for the people of Gibraltar. The matter will never be resolved until Spain adopts the democratic, modern approach of accepting the human rights and the right to self-determination of the people of Gibraltar. It can only be hoped that Spain's diplomatic tantrums continue to wash over the proud Gibraltarian people as harmlessly as the sea spray assaults their great rock. Let the message go out from the House that Gibraltar will never be ceded to Spain and that it will remain British in perpetuity.
10.22 am
Mr. Chris Bryant: I would say to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) that a bombastic debate is not useful. We must make a genuine and honest attempt to achieve proper outcomes that give the people of Gibraltar a better standard of living and better opportunities to build their lives. They must have an opportunity to live as full and forthright members of the European Union.
I am glad that we are having today's debate because there should be discussion. The hon. Member for Romford, who has just declared that there should be no discussion, is flying in the face of reason. The status quo is not sustainable for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). The quality of life for Gibraltarians, which relates to issues such as border delays and phone lines, has no prospect of improvement under the status quo. Indeed, we have not considered the number of Gibraltarians who choose to use the Spanish national health service rather than St. Bernard's hospital. If we had a genuine, calm, decent, honest debate in which we did not start chucking around words such as "hypocrisy", we might be able to achieve significant benefits for Gibraltarians.
The present situation is unsustainable because Gibraltar will become increasingly isolated within the European Union. European Union elements that may be of benefit will contain an exclusion for Gibraltar that will make things increasingly difficult for its economy and for its people to live their lives.
Mr. Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how Gibraltar would be disadvantaged? It is a member of the European Union, as we are members. How can he justify any suggestion that one set of European Union citizens should be disadvantaged in any way because of a territorial claim by another member state?
Mr. Bryant: I agree that European Union citizens should not be disadvantaged, but we have heard no proposals on how to change the status quo from any hon. Members who have spoken today. The open skies directive no longer applies to Gibraltar and other territorial issues in EU directives will make things more difficult for Gibraltar's economy.
Mr. Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bryant: I may give way in a moment.
Many hon. Members who have spoken have not realised that the present situation is also unsustainable simply because Spain has changed. Between 1969 and 1972, when I was young, I lived in Spain. I remember the Government under Franco. I remember driving past the political prison in Carabanchel and seeing the guards outside with their Darth Vader hats. The country has changed dramatically. Some people have been rather caustic about Spanish democracy. Spain has, in fact, managed the transition to democracy with considerable aplomb, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned. We need to recognise those issues.
I look for a new solution, but I openly say to hon. Members who have spoken in a different vein that Gibraltar should be taking part in the Brussels process

83WH
on the basis of safety and dignity, as Mr. Caruana said when he first took office. I firmly believe that that is true and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) who said in a previous debate that the Foreign Affairs Committee
"does not believe that co-operation with Spain should in any way be equated with appeasement. The tendency in Gibraltar to criticise successive British Governments in that regard is regrettable. Co-operation is, in our view, the most sensible way forward."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 119WH.]
That is an almost impossible case to answer.
Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the Gibraltar Government have always said that they have been entirely happy to have an arrangement with the provincial Government over the border in Andalucia, so that the matters of that region can be worked out collaboratively? They are happy to participate in local government arrangements across Spain with the Spanish. So they have never been unwilling to come to practical arrangements, provided that Spain accepts that Britain has sovereignty. They must determine for themselves who the Government of Gibraltar are; that is up to them. If Spain were willing to take that off the agenda, there could be lots of co-operation.
Mr. Bryant: I agree, but that is all the more reason for Mr. Caruana to take part in the Brussels process at the end of the month, not least because he has asked for safety and dignity. I have no problem in saying that the constitution of 23 May 1969 is entirely right.
Furthermore, Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would live under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. Several hon. Members have sought reassurance on that and it must be the fundamental principle on which we proceed. That should not prevent us from discussing enhanced co-operation that might involve EU money, NATO, customs, telephone lines, and other matters that would materially affect people's lives. Mr. Caruana should take part in such discussions and there should be some discussion of sovereignty.
We should not decide the conclusions of those discussions in advance. However, by virtue of the constitution, and as successive Governments have stated, at the end of the process the people of Gibraltar should have a referendum on any proposals. The British and Spanish Governments would then honour that referendum.
Mr. Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bryant: I am sorry. I said that I would give way, but I want to finish my argument.
Mr. Francois rose—
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman will obviously not give way.
Mr. Bryant: I shall press on, because others want to speak.
84WH
If it is not possible to resolve the issue under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Aznar, it is unlikely ever to be resolved. On behalf of the British and Spanish Governments and, most of all, the people of Gibraltar, I would feel ashamed if we got to 2050 without having come to a better resolution. I ask hon. Members who have argued differently in the debate which solution they propose.
Mr. Rosindell: Democracy.
Mr. Bryant: It is not good enough just to shout out a single word. Democracy is a good principle, but we have to create a better opportunity for the people of Gibraltar.
10.30 am
Mr. Nigel Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this important debate at a crucial period in the history of the people of Gibraltar.
I have visited Gibraltar twice, most recently in September this year, with the hon. Member for Chorley, other hon. Members and Members of the European Parliament. In a series of meetings, we were left in no doubt that the people of Gibraltar regard themselves as British, value their historic links with Britain and wish to remain British. Above all, they want the right to self-determination so that they can decide for themselves their own future. Surely they should have that right in a democratic world.
It was pointed out to us that historically there should be no question of Gibraltar's right to remain British, because that right is enshrined under the treaty of Utrecht. For any change to occur, Britain would first have to relinquish its claim on the territory. So, my first question to the Minister for Europe is easy. Does the Government have any intention of relinquishing our claim on Gibraltar? The political leaders in Gibraltar demand the right to self-determination. Chief Minister, Peter Caruana and the Opposition leaders, Joe Bassano and Joseph Garcia. are united in their view on self-determination.
Albert Poggio MBE, the United Kingdom representative of the Government of Gibraltar, sent hon. Members a copy of a declaration of unity that was signed on 4 October this year by all Members of the Gibraltar House of Assembly, four past and present Speakers of the House of Assembly and 20 former members of the Gibraltar legislature. It states:
"We, the undersigned, being all the elected Members…declare and endorse the following propositions, which unite and reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of Gibraltar.
1.The people of Gibraltar will never, ever, compromise or give up our inalienable right to self-determination, that is, the right to decide our future in our land
2.The people of Gibraltar will never compromise or give up our sovereignty, not for good relations with anybody and not for economic benefits either.
3.The people of Gibraltar will not compromise our right to self-determination, still less sovereignty, in exchange for respect for rights which are ours anyway, and which others should be made to respect unconditionally".
They
"a. CALL UPON Her Majesty's Government to honour, respect and uphold our EU rights by ensuring that we participate in all EC and EU measures in the same manner and to the same

85WH
extent as all other citizens and territories of the European Union AND WE CONDEMN Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for capitulating under pressure to the suspension of Gibraltar from the EU Single Skies measures, and the Government of the Kingdom of Spain for demanding it.
b. REAFFIRM that Gibraltar wants good, neighbourly, European relations with Spain based on reasonable dialogue and mutual respect. Spain is obliged to respect our EU and other rights.
c. ASSERT that Gibraltar belongs to the people of Gibraltar and is neither Spain's to claim, nor Britain's to give away."
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The hon. Member for Rhondda(Mr. Bryant) made the Government's negotiation tactics obvious. Their aim is to discuss sovereignty with Spain in the hope that Spain will grant Gibraltar economic benefits. The Government would put that proposal to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum so that people could see that there would be economic benefits, but only if they accepted the poisoned chalice of interference in their affairs by the Spanish. It is obvious that those are the Government's tactics.
Mr. Jones: I do not know if it is obvious—we will have to wait for the Minister to give his response—but it is certainly a concern of many people in Gibraltar, not least the members of the Assembly there.
Mr. Rosindell: In September, it was my privilege to travel to Gibraltar with the hon. Gentleman. In the light of the declaration that he has read out, would he agree that it was astonishing to see the leaders of all three political parties—Joseph Garcia of the Liberal party, Joe Bassano of the Gibraltar Socialist Labour party and Peter Caruana, the leader of the Gibraltar Social Democrats—in total unity in their determination to ensure that the people of Gibraltar decide their own future?
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. This is becoming a second speech. I think the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) has got the point.
Mr. Jones: Yes, I agree with the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). It was one of the finest examples of constructive opposition that I have seen.
Those of us who were present on national day, 10 September, were in no doubt that the people of Gibraltar support the declaration. Half of the population of 32,000 turned out in the main square to celebrate their Britishness and to demonstrate their wishes to us and to other visitors. Undoubtedly, visitors from Spain observed that gathering and we have already heard about the number of difficulties that exist between Gibraltar and Spain.
I will concentrate on the open skies agreement that was mentioned in the declaration. I tabled two questions, the first was sent to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to ask what criteria were assessed when deciding to sign the European open skies agreement. The Minister replied:
"The European Commission presented its legislative proposals on the European Single Sky to the Transport Council on the 16 October.
The Government is considering its response to these proposals, but has not signed any agreement."—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373. c. 483w.]
86WH
I also tabled a question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that asked what assessment had been made of the impact of excluding Gibraltar from the European single sky agreement. I received a long answer from the Minister, for which I am grateful. It said:
"We consider that the Commission's proposed Single Sky package offers the best way of reducing delays and improving safety, and is essential for improving the use and management of EU airspace. Spain insisted that Gibraltar airport be suspended from the scope of application of the Single Sky legislative measures. Given the importance which the UK attaches to the initiative, we reluctantly agreed that clauses suspending the application of the measure to Gibraltar airport will be inserted when the proposal is considered by the Council."—[Official Report, 1 November 2001: Vol. 373, c. 811w.]
It seems to me that we caved in and allowed the Spanish Government to dictate terms. That goes to the heart of the problem, which the people of Gibraltar see as Spain claiming Gibraltar and Britain not batting for the people of Gibraltar. I am conscious of the fact that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman have to wind up, but if the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British, they should be given the right to vote in the European elections. If they want to be attached to the south-west region for those elections, I am sure that we would all welcome that.
10.39 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: I thank the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for initiating the debate. It has been more than a year since the House properly discussed Gibraltar and this has provided a useful opportunity to discuss the issues at a very important time. I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering commiserations to Spain for yesterday's car bomb in Madrid. We all condemn terrorism wherever it is perpetrated.
The House may be amused to know that I have a personal link with Gibraltar. My father was commanding officer of 224 Squadron in the early 1960s and as a youngster I used to spend a lot of time running up the beach near the border with La Linea as he was flying his Shackletons on maritime reconnaissance over the Mediterranean. That was 40 years ago, but I have vivid memories of Gibraltar. My brother was born there and the last time I saw him he seemed British to me.
This is an important time for Gibraltar. The Foreign Secretary will meet his Spanish counterpart in Barcelona on 20 November to discuss the future and they have agreed to resolve that future by the end of the year. That has inevitably given rise to rumours and concerns that require the Minister to offer reassurance. I am sorry to say that there have been too many examples of the Government's lack of clarity. They have failed to reject the proposals of Abel Matutes for joint sovereignty. Those proposals sat on the desk of the previous Foreign Secretary for four years and now that the Government are negotiating with Spain—we would like to know about what—we have still had no assurance that they are doing so on the basis that those proposals are unacceptable. When the Conservative party was in office, the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, rejected those proposals. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will do the same.
Unfortunately, that is not the only instance of the Government's failure to respond unequivocally to Spanish claims. On 15 March, the Spanish Foreign

87WH
Minister, Mr. Pique, referred to Gibraltar as a "gigantic duty free shop" and an "economic parasite" on Spain. In our view, those are ill-chosen words, and it is disappointing that the Government have not responded to those remarks and still more disappointing that they have failed to do so even after the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs criticised them six months ago for their lack of response. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to reject those comments on the record in response to the recommendations of the Select Committee.
Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly, on 30 October, Mr. Pique said:
"the people of Gibraltar cannot have the right of veto over matters being discussed by two sovereign states".
Does the Minister agree that the citizens of Gibraltar have good reason to be wary of the current negotiations with Spain? Gibraltarians have a right to veto any proposed change in their status and if they want to remain under British sovereignty, they should. They have never voted for anything else and should be free from outside pressure. Gibraltar's position is very clear and supported by a massive majority on any measure that has ever been taken. Will the Minister tell the House what he intends to discuss and what will be on the agenda in his meetings with the Spanish?
The Minister could give one crucial assurance that would allay many fears. The Government could confirm unequivocally that Gibraltar retains the right to face no change in its status without the wholehearted consent of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister confirm that the preamble to the Gibraltar legislation of 1969 still stands and will govern all his conduct and discussions throughout the next few months?
I want to leave the Minister as much time as possible. Other hon. Members have spoken about the restriction of movement, the open skies agreement and other matters that appear to Gibraltarians to be an attempt to bully them into some form of submission. I would like an assurance that Gibraltarians will be able to vote in European elections.
The views of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) are puzzling. She views the status of Gibraltar as a British territory as an anachronistic relic. Is it an anachronistic relic of colonialism to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and to respect the fact that they want it to remain a British overseas territory? If so, she believes that democracy itself has become an anachronistic relic. To approach issues of foreign policy in a simplistic way will cause great problems, because when an issue is tackled simplistically, it causes problems elsewhere on the globe. The hon. Lady thinks that a small territory whose only land border is shared with a larger neighbour should, whatever the wishes of its inhabitants, allow the larger neighbour to incorporate it. That logic is at best mad, and at worst—I dare not say. Does the hon. Lady think that East Timor should be part of Indonesia? If she follows her simple line of thought, she will find that it raises similar problems across the globe.
We seek the Minister's assurance that he is doing nothing behind the scenes to cause the House concern.
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. Some hon. Members who have contributed to the debate may have visited Gibraltar as a guest of the Government of Gibraltar, or in some other capacity. They may wish to make that interest clear for the record, if they have not already done so.
Mr. Hoyle: I would like to do so.
Mrs. Laing indicated assent.
Mr. Rosindell indicated assent.
Sir Teddy Taylor indicated assent.
Miss Kirkbride indicated assent.
Mr.Nigel Jones indicated assent.
10.46 am
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for securing this debate. The all-party Gibraltar group, of which he is chairman, does a valuable job.
I shall answer the questions that hon. Members have asked after I have placed the Government's policy on the record. Like the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I believe that we have a unique opportunity to resolve the historic tensions between Gibraltar and Spain, to settle differences and to move forward to a better future for the people of the rock. We have a new opportunity to achieve three wins: a win for Gibraltar, a win for Britain, and a win for Spain. If we lack the courage to grasp the opportunity and retreat because of lack of political will or absence of vision, we shall all lose. The main losers, however, will be the people of Gibraltar.
Gibraltarians have nothing to fear from the discussions in Brussels; our dialogue with Spain is not a threat, but an opportunity for Gibraltar to secure a safer, more prosperous future. I know from a recent visit that Gibraltar is a proud place and that Gibraltarians are proud people. They are hugely suspicious of Spain and of British Ministers and officials. They do not like to feel that they are being told what to do. But no one is telling anyone what to do. When the dialogue ends, the people of Gibraltar will be able to form a judgment. I ask the people of Gibraltar to judge us by our actions and by outcomes, not by myths and prejudices.
I assure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that the Government stand by the constitutional commitment given to Gibraltar in the preamble to the Order in Council that established the 1969 constitution. It states:
"Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
I shall go further and, for the first time, give this pledge: we will never ask any Gibraltarian to sacrifice his or her citizenship unless they freely choose to do so. Gibraltarians shall remain British citizens for as long as they want.

89WH
Europe has changed, and is changing. Gibraltar should not be left behind in those changes. Some politicians and pressure groups cry, "Stop this change, I want to get off." They let Gibraltar down. They are stuck in the previous generation, when the Iberian peninsula was a very different place. Spain was under the rule of Franco. and Gibraltar was threatened. Spain has long since undergone profound transformation, and it is now one of Europe's leading democracies. It is one of our closest NATO allies and one of our strongest partners in the European Union.
I was among those who refused to visit Spain when it was under the rule of Franco, but 13 million Britons now holiday in Spain every year. Some 500,000 Britons—more than 15 times the population of Gibraltar—have made Spain their home. Hundreds of Gibraltarians have properties in Spain. Many more shop and spend their leisure time there. The people of Britain and Spain have never been closer and, despite aggravation, the people of Gibraltar and Spain have never been closer.
The politics of 1969 must be replaced by the politics of 2001. The British Government must make choices. Will we try to reach a new deal for Gibraltar, or will we duck the issue and pretend that matters can continue as they are even though they take Gibraltar nowhere fast? Does Spain have the courage to make hard decisions? Does Gibraltar have the vision to contemplate a new deal? The choices will not go away. If they are ducked, Gibraltar will be left behind.
The dispute with Spain about Gibraltar is a constant factor in the otherwise excellent relationship between Britain and Spain. For a long time, Spain has placed grossly unsatisfactory and damaging obstacles in the way of normal life for the people of Gibraltar. The obstacles include restrictions on the use of the airport, long and unpredictable delays in crossing the border, restrictions on telecommunications and even restrictions on organising dog shows.
The dispute has gone on for so long that attitudes on both sides have hardened. The only key movement made by Spain was an offer of more than triple the number of telephone numbers available—from 30,000 to 100,000—and that was announced at the first meeting of the resumed Brussels process. The time has come for Spain clearly to demonstrate its new attitude through action. It could, for example, open up normal red and green channels at the border; allow normal procedures for the diversion of Gibraltar-bound flights in bad weather; ensure that Gibraltarian mobile telephones work in Spain; and ensure that telephone calls from other countries get through.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said, the status quo is not sustainable, because Gibraltar's relations with Spain are abnormal and will remain so if the status quo prevails. Spain's historic aspirations are unattainable, and the continuous aggravation with Gibraltar is anachronistic and unseemly. Britain's relations with both Spain and Gibraltar are damaged by the status quo.
Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?
Peter Hain: I will give way at the end of my speech if I have the chance. For the European Union, the status
90WH
quo is a permanent threat to Britain and Spain's relationships—with each other and with our European partners. That is to Gibraltar's detriment.
As the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) said, we recently agreed to suspend application of the EU single sky agreement and aviation security legislation to Gibraltar. We did not take that decision lightly, but we must face reality; it is imperative that we have a safe air traffic system in Europe. The suspended implementation of that legislation will have a minimal impact on the people of Gibraltar and their security. None the less, I understand the feelings of those in Gibraltar who demonstrated on 4 October against the suspension of the single sky agreement and of the many senior figures in Gibraltar who signed the declaration on the subject.
I understand why some suggest that the solution is straightforward—that Britain should bang the table and demand that Spain and the European Commission sort out these and other problems—but a fortress Gibraltar would achieve nothing. Proponents of a fortress Gibraltar do not understand the realities of modern Europe or the need for consensus. The blunderbuss approach that we are persistently exhorted to adopt on Gibraltar's behalf would receive little or no support from our EU partners or from the Commission.
A second line of argument states that we should take all Gibraltar's complaints on the EU to the European Court of Justice. Even when that is possible, the legal processes involved are slow and uncertain, and there is no guarantee of a helpful outcome. We will get further, sooner, if all sides have the political will to find a solution. We and our European colleagues face huge challenges, big decisions and hard choices on the future of the EU, economic reform, security from terrorism, our environments and many other issues. Our European partners do not understand why a dispute between two member states over a territory with a population one fifteenth that of Luxembourg should be a deciding factor in such decisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. It is obvious that the Minister has no intention of giving way at the moment.
Peter Hain: As I have promised, I will give way at the end of the debate if I have the chance to do so.
As a result of regular discussions with the Spanish Government, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I firmly believe that Madrid's approach to Gibraltar is genuinely starting to change. We have no fixed blueprint. As I said to the House on 30 October, there is no secret deal with Spain; there is no hidden agenda. In fact, the position is quite the opposite. There is a mutually frank desire to resolve an unsustainable status quo, and it would be irresponsible of the Foreign Secretary and I not to pursue it.
I say to Conservative Members who tell us not to talk to Spain that the Conservative Government talked to Spain persistently to try to resolve such issues. Indeed, the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe of Aberavon,

91WH
wrote about that recently in The Times and the former European Minister, Lord Garel-Jones, has written about it in the Gibraltar Chronicle.
If we cannot make serious progress within, say, a year, the Government and the House will attend to other priorities of great importance. Gibraltar will be left with a live dispute and problems with the rest of Europe. Continued tension with Spain will be a day-to-day reality. I am giving an honest assessment of political reality and those who choose to ignore it are doing the people of Gibraltar a grave disservice. As well as confronting reality, let us consider the huge opportunity for Gibraltar provided by the current situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) said, let us have the vision and the boldness to grasp it. If we reach the agreement that I thinly believe is now within our grasp, Gibraltar will have a free flow of people, goods and services on and off the Spanish mainland. It will become the financial services hub for Andalucia and the wider region, and that will bring more jobs and prosperity to all. Agreement about allowing the airport to be fully developed—which is thwarted by the current impasse—would transform the opportunities for travel and tourism in the whole region.
The Government's objective is that decisions about Gibraltar are made in Gibraltar by elected representatives of the people of Gibraltar and not by officials and Ministers in London. The best way in which to achieve a new deal for Gibraltar is through dialogue. Gibraltar has nothing to fear and everything to gain from such a dialogue. That is why we have worked so hard to enable the Gibraltar Government to join the meetings under the Brussels process, with its guaranteed separate voice—as Britain and Spain have agreed jointly. Spanish Ministers have assured us that they would welcome the attendance of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who will be treated with the respect and dignity that his position deserves. There is no reason why he cannot attend such meetings, and I again invited him to do so by telephone last night. The next meeting is on 20 November and more meetings are planned thereafter.
However, if Gibraltar feels unable to accept the invitation to join the Brussels process, the process must and will go forward. It is vital that the momentum and good will that we have established are sustained. The dispute that led the Conservative Government to agree the Brussels communiqué 1984 will not go away. It would be the height of irresponsibility on my part to pretend that it will. This is a moment of destiny for
92WH
Gibraltar. The Foreign Secretary and I mean business. We shall do all that we can to resolve the impasse and build a new future for Gibraltar.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Hain: I wish to respond briefly to the specific questions that have been put to me and then I shall give way. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked about voting in European parliamentary elections. I assure him that we shall secure such a position urgently in accordance with the court judgment. The lion. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) said that Gibraltar's view counts—of course, it does. The hon. Member for Romford said that we should not discuss such matters with Spain, yet our Conservative predecessors held such discussions consistently.
Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister give way?
Peter Hain: I have been asked questions, and I am trying to answer them. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked about the Matutes proposals. At the ministerial meeting on 26 July between the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister, we agreed to set aside the proposals and to focus on the future.
This has been a good debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Hain: I shall happily take an intervention from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).
Mrs. Laing: I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will not repeat his chilling remark that, because Gibraltar is small, it is insignificant: 30,000 people are 30,000 people.
Peter Hain: The hon. Lady mischievously puts words into my mouth. [HON. MEMBERS: "You said it."] What I said was that we needed the agreement of our European partners to advance Gibraltar's interests. To do that, we need to build consensus with Spain. We are trying to do that, and the hon. Lady should support us.
Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend said twice that the status quo was unsustainable. Does status quo involve sovereignty?
Peter Hain: As the Chief Minister said, in any discussion, he would expect Spain to raise its longstanding sovereignty claim. However, we are not prepared to enter into discussions on the basis of fixed agendas. We must find out whether we can find a way forward.

Sub-Post Offices
11 am
Mr. David Heath: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this issue. I am slightly surprised to find that this is the first such opportunity in this Parliament, if only because in the last Parliament the topic seemed to recur with alarming regularity, and hardly surprisingly, because of the great anxiety felt by hon. Members of all parties about the potential loss of the sub-post office network.
We know that post office closures are not a new phenomenon and have been happening over a long period, but an acceleration followed the Government's ill-judged announcements on automated credit transfer, which had a significant effect on people's decisions about whether their businesses could remain viable.
During the last Parliament, about a year and a half ago, significant anxiety was expressed about the future of the post office network. In April 2000, the National Federation of SubPostmasters organised a fantastic rally, which I was happy to attend, just across the road, in Methodist Central Hall. The message from that meeting was how worried people were, to the point at which the Prime Minister himself realised that the game was up and something had to be done. Petitions were organised throughout the country. In my region, the Western Daily Press accumulated more than 1 million signatures to express people's anxiety at what was happening to the post office network.
The response was belated. but when it came it was welcome. It took the form of the performance and innovation unit report, which contained several proposals to maintain the post office network. One of the most important was the concept of a universal bank that would deal directly with social and financial exclusion and, it was hoped, provide a stream of revenue to enable smaller post offices to continue.
In addition to the universal bank, a measure of protection was introduced through the Postal Services Act 2000, and the past 12 months have brought the advent of new technology in our post offices, such as the Horizon system, which is now in place. That welcome raft of Government proposals did a great deal to allay the worst of people's fears about what was happening to the post office network. People took the proposals at face value and realised that if they all came to fruition there was the prospect of maintaining a viable network. It is no disparagement to the Minister responding to today's debate to note that many people were also persuaded by the transparent energy and enthusiasm of the previous Minister, now the Minister for Employment and the Regions, whose clear commitment to the Post Office was obvious in all his dealings with the matter.
What has disappointed many people, and certainly me, is that it has all gone very quiet since the election. There has been a paucity of announcements from the Government on the situation, and little progress has been made in terms of setting up the universal bank, which is supposed to be coming into operation in 2003. That is a clear deadline, but I detect no urgency on the part of Government, and there has been no substantive progress—but perhaps we will hear different when the Minister replies.
94WH
It is of even greater concern that despite all the assurances, and the framework that the Government have acclaimed, the problem remains: many sub-post offices are still being closed throughout the country. I heard with amazement the Minister of State, Scotland Office, saying yesterday that there were no closures in his constituency and everything was fine. That is all hunky-dory for his constituency, although it does not accord with the experience of many other hon. Members. Indeed, a parliamentary reply earlier this year showed that, in the financial year up to March 2001, no fewer than 547 post offices closed. That is a significant number, and it should be a matter of alarm.
That view was reinforced yesterday, as a pure happenstance, by the Countryside Agency report, with which I am sure the Minister will be familiar. It singles out post offices as the service in rural areas that is still showing decline, while in other areas there seems to have been a reversal of decline. In a press release to accompany the report, the deputy chairman of the Countryside Agency says:
"The current pressures on the Post Office and doubts about the future of the Universal Bank could lead to further closures, despite the government's commitment to maintain the rural network."
That is undoubtedly the case.
What is the motor for those closures? Part of it is purely demographic—a continuation of what has happened previously. Much of it, however, is due to the uncertainty about the future of the universal bank and the post office network, which the Government have allowed to continue. When there is uncertainty, people cannot produce viable plans to take on new business or maintain their current business through bank borrowings or other means. Without the confidence of a guaranteed revenue stream in the future that will make businesses viable, closures will follow, irrespective of the good intentions of the Government or anyone else, and local communities will be damaged.
It will be not only rural communities that are damaged—I represent a rural area and feel passionately about services in our villages—but urban and suburban communities. Many of the losses in recent years have been on the edge of towns and in the poorer areas of towns and cities, which is equally worrying for those who depend on such post offices. The people about whom we should care most are those vulnerable individuals who may be dependent on benefits and pensions, and who rely on their local post office for the cash in their hand each week. Such people budget week to week—this is something that Ministers sometimes forget—in terms not of a monthly cheque that goes into a bank account, but in terms of the cash that they have in their hand, which they need to spend to keep body and soul together. It is desperately important to them that they can continue to draw money over the post office counter, and that it is close and available to them in their local communities.
I wish to ask a series of questions. If the Minister is able to answer them, some of the concerns that have been expressed might melt away. First, who is running the show? That is a fundamental question for the Government to answer. I am unclear about who is responsible for establishing the universal bank and for maintaining the post office network. It is clear that the Minister's Department still has a role as the sponsoring Department. Indeed, I understand that the budget still

95WH
lies with the Department of Trade and Industry, which will support any subsidies required by the system. However, we are also told that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been installed as some sort of universal bank tsar. We hope that the bank can be sorted out, but opinions differ about his precise role: he might be a Treasury man, or his task might be to do what is best in terms of the delivery of benefits. It is certainly unclear whether his purpose is to do what is best for post offices and their customers.
I seek clarification about the specific responsibilities of the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury—which is the unseen force here—and about how their activities interact.
My second question is, when will the protracted negotiations to set up the universal bank reach a clear conclusion? Although 2003 is fast approaching, we do not yet know what form that bank will have, and we have not received detailed information about the services that it will provide. However, we have heard clear intentions about those services. Several clearing banks and other financial institutions have regularly entered the discussions about the project: sometimes they have expressed their determination to make it work, but at other times they have sounded distinctly lukewarm about it. We need to know when there will be clarity about the matter. When will the financial negotiations for setting up the bank conclude, and when will we learn of their outcome?
Thirdly, how will the universal bank work? That question raises a specific problem: if the bank is to do what many hon. Members—and postmasters—wish, which is to provide over-the-counter services to the millions of people who take their benefits or pensions in cash, there will need to be a substantial commitment to the basic Post Office account, the third tier of financial transaction available in post offices. All of the surveys that have been conducted prove that those millions of customers will not be attracted by the offer of a basic bank account through the Post Office, or by using their post office to operate a bank account that has been opened elsewhere. The Post Office basic account is crucial to future operation. I have heard estimates that 5 or 6 million people ought to be using that form of transaction, yet we are also authoritatively informed that the Treasury believe that that figure should be no more than 2 million. The Minister will be able to tell me whether that is true.
I also want the Minister to tell me whether there is to be a cap on the number of Post Office basic accounts. If there is, how will it operate? Will the Government fund only up to 2 million accounts, beyond which the Post Office will be on its own in financing the transactions? That would put a huge financial burden on the Post Office and undermine the operation's purpose. Will the cap be on individual post offices, so that the number of transactions for which they will be reimbursed is limited? Again in that case, the burden and risk fall on individual post offices.
If neither of those mechanisms is used, how will the cap be applied? If there is to be a cap, how will that affect post offices that serve the least well-off areas? It is easy to see that once there is a universal bank in a more
96WH
affluent area, people will transfer to bank accounts of one sort or another. They will be happy with that and not have a significant problem. However, in less well-off areas, more people are likely to want their basic post office account. If that is so, how will rationing work within the post office network to ensure that the post offices that we wish to survive are not the ones that cannot survive because they are unviable? That is a key question.
My fourth question is: when will we see investment by the national post office network in information technology that is connected to the local Horizon IT in sub-post offices, so that it can be used to its full potential? Currently, we have the nonsense that the average post office has a wonderful piece of kit on its counter that could enable it to do much, but most of the operations cannot be done because the next tier up is not available; the Government have not clarified their intentions. When will we have the necessary investment that will repay the investment of local post offices to provide a wider range of services?
My fifth question is very easy and the Minister can place the answer in the Library this afternoon. Will he identify the network of rural post offices that the Government intend to save? I believe—he can correct me if I am wrong—that that information is not yet available. The matter has been raised in parliamentary questions and Ministers have replied that there are 9,000 such post offices and therefore too many to list. It is not too many to list and many people would be interested to know the strategically important rural post offices that the Government intend to preserve. If we knew that, we would be in a better position to assist our constituents.
I turn to my sixth question. The Post Office has run an innovative pilot scheme in Leicestershire, the your guide scheme. That extends the concept of the general practitioner role of the Post Office. I do not come from Leicestershire, but I am told that the scheme has been well received and that people are keen on it. If that is so, why are we not quickly extending the pilot scheme to bring more post offices into its ambit? If a scheme is successful, we must share that success. It would send an excellent signal to people who are wrestling with business decisions about their individual post office. They would be shown that on its way was a lifeline that gave them an enhanced role.
Many hon. Members wish to join the debate and I do not want to take up too much time. I quote the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, Colin Baker:
"Our customers have already chosen their local post office. What they now expect…is a quick, simple, no-fuss swap of their pension and order books for a post office-based account when the change in paying benefits takes place in 2003."
That is precisely what we are looking for and the Minister could, if he wished, confirm that that is happening. What we need, but more importantly what the post office network and its customers need, is some clarity and commitment to build confidence that the things that are being discussed are actually happening.
The Government may feel that the issue is old and belongs to the previous Parliament. They may feel that it was a good issue before the general election but that they sorted it, all has gone quiet and they are on the home straight. I assure Ministers and anyone else who is listening that that is far from the case.

97WH
If the debate serves any purpose at all, I hope that it will get some answers from the Minister. It should act as a warning to the Government that the community of interests that supports our post office network is still there and is examining carefully the Government's actions. That community is as ready to exert whatever political influence it can muster during the months and years ahead as it ever was. It will not take much to rekindle the interest that was exhibited last year. We want our post office network to survive. We feel that it serves a necessary purpose in communities up and down the country and we are impatient that the Government seem to be taking so long to deliver effective action to make that a reality.
11.21 am
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate and on his speech. I have a longstanding interest in the matter, arising not least from my work as an adviser to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs during its major investigation into social exclusion in Wales, the results of which were published in a report last year.
I would like to speak briefly about the context in Wales. There are many negative features, such as the recently announced reduction in the number of collections in rural areas to one a day. In my constituency, the reduction in the hours of service provided to the public by local post offices is something that the organisation has refused to change its mind about. The centralisation of sorting in my part of rural Wales is a problem. For example, there is the ludicrous situation where a letter sent from Rhoshirwaun to Rhiw on the Llyn peninsula, a matter of a few miles, is taken to Chester to be sorted, sometimes taking many days to return, even with a first-class stamp. Another aspect, which has already been referred to, is the automated transfer of pensions and benefits.
Since my election in June, a number of further difficulties have emerged, such as the recruiting of sub-postmasters in my constituency. It is extremely difficult to recruit people who are ready to take on such work. In evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 4 July, the Post Office said that small rural post offices have an income of perhaps only £3,000 to £4,000 per annum, and that income is fixed. Small, full-time post offices in rural areas pay only £7,000 to £8,000 a year for a 40-hour week. As was confirmed to the Committee, that was roughly the minimum wage at the time. I do not think that that is enough for such responsible work and the National Federation of SubPostmasters agrees.
It was confirmed that, in three quarters of the Welsh constituencies, more than 50 per cent. of sub-post offices rely on benefit payments for a significant proportion of their business. Those sub-post offices are important to rural communities in Wales, but there have been closures, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. Between 1995 and 2000 there were 150 closures in Wales. In 1999 there were 10 closures. In 2000 there were 40—the rate is accelerating.
Sub-post offices perform a variety of vital functions. They are sources of Government information and are a vital feature of rural Welsh community life. One of the first films made in Welsh, "Y Noson Lawen", featuring
98WH
performances of popular songs and poetry, had at the end, as the payoff to its sponsors, one of the characters depositing money in a national savings account—where else but at the local sub-post office?
Before we become too charmed by a rose cottage view of rural life, let me emphasise that Welsh rural communities are under threat from well-known sources. The crisis in agriculture, the lack of alternative job opportunities, the sky-high house prices—my area has both low incomes and some of the highest house prices in Wales, much more than three times local average income—and the closure of local facilities all lead to the migration of young, energetic and talented people. In that situation, sub-post offices are vital. Each is an indicator of the vitality of its local community and one of its chief supporters. People who need and can only afford basic financial services and those who cannot travel to larger population centres need their services.
The members of the Welsh Affairs Committee were concerned about the lack of understanding of the geography of rural Wales. One of the banks giving evidence said that it was closing a branch but that it had another only four miles away. However, that was as the crow flies. On the ground, it was up and down several mountains and valleys—the journey would, apparently, have taken all day. When the Post Office was asked about its system of measuring distances between sub-post offices, it confirmed that that, too, was as the crow flies. Crows are crows and people are people, and people cannot fly. Sub-post offices need the certainty of a secure and prosperous future. They need to become one-stop shops for many services including, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the universal bank.
Some sub-post offices in rural Wales are community co-operatives. Some of them do well enough, but they do so thanks to the intense support and effort of the local community. Others are small businesses run by hard-working couples. They are finding it difficult. There are particular circumstances in Wales, and those circumstances are best addressed in Wales. In a debate on sub-post offices in the National Assembly for Wales on 24 May 2000, Peter Law, then the Labour Local Government Secretary, said, rather despairingly:
"Policy for Post offices is not a devolved function and the Assembly has no power to prevent closures."
In Plaid Cymru, we believe that it is high time that the National Assembly for Wales had such powers.
11.28 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: This is an important matter and I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on his contribution. I was interested in what he said about the Post Office's guidance on closures and the fact that it measures distance as the crow flies. I thought that perhaps there was to be a backdoor reintroduction of the pigeon post. However, crows are crows, pigeons are pigeons and people are people.
I have been a Member of Parliament since 1992 and have participated in a number of debates on the Post Office. There were closures soon after I was elected. I remember the chorus from the then Labour Opposition, saying that that was despicable. that post

99WH
offices were vital, particularly for rural areas, and that it was the policy of the then Government to close post offices and merely to look at the numbers. We foolishly thought that if there were a change of Government, there would be a change of fortune for the Post Office. That has not been the case, which is sad. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome told us how many post offices have closed since the Labour party came to government. I worry that the number of post office closures is accelerating. In 2000, the number jumped to 382, according to Library statistics. The number for 2001 is expected to climb to more than 500. Those are enormous numbers.
I imagine that the job description would put people off going into the business. It would refer to long or, indeed, very short hours. Irrespective of that, it would offer low pay and enormous responsibility, yet require the ability to risk one's own money in the venture with the possibility of only a small profit at the end. Running a sub-post office, particularly in a rural area, is a vocation more than a job, and some people will do it irrespective of the returns. The challenge for the Government is to make it more attractive so that more people will want to do it. Many post offices are marginal businesses: they run at small rates of profit and would make no money at all but for the fact that they are usually allied to another business of sorts, such as a grocery business. One postmaster told me that the Post Office salary used to subsidise the other business, and it is incredibly worrying that the situation is now the other way round.
There have been post office closures in my constituency, which is very rural. There are more than 30 villages, most of which had post offices. The Post Office said that it would have kept the Stonyhurst post office open, but that no one could be found to run it. That is part of the problem: who would sacrifice their money and time given that job description? People must also invest in the building, and, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, the cost in some villages is disproportionate. Any sane person who had worked out the mathematics before interest rates became what they are would have found that they could earn more by investing their money in the bank than by buying a building and operating a business from it.
The suburban Barracks post office in Fulwood recently closed. I was told that it was difficult to find anyone to buy the building and open it as a business, but that people could go—although not quite as the crow flies—to a supermarket nearby. Many elderly people who rely on post offices in their villages and communities do not find it easy to get around. It is easy for those who have a car to go to out-of-town shopping centres or to large shopping centres in towns, but those who do not will have enormous difficulties if public transport is poor, as it tends to be in many rural areas.
Post offices in rural areas are a social service and a lifeline for many elderly people. One postmaster gives out pensions on a certain day, but will knock on the doors of pensioners who do not come to collect theirs to make sure that things are okay. What other business does that? The postmaster and postmistress in many rural post offices are a husband-and-wife team and very much part of their community, which they love.
100WH
However, that is no reason to take them for granted and not to give them a proper reward for the job that they do.
The presence of the post office means that a village is alive—there is lifeblood and a centre of activity. If it closes, there is the risk of the village dying, as we have seen with the disappearance of village schools and shops. For many reasons, the village post office tends to be the last shop to survive. but it is under threat.
Every year, I make a summer tour of my constituency, visiting every village in a week. I always take the time to go to the post offices and speak to the postmaster and postmistress. They know everything that goes on and can tell me if there are problems and suggest what approach we should be taking in Parliament. I spoke with three such people this morning. They provided three short histories of an aspect of the problem.
A lady called Olga Leach runs the Bolton-by-Bowland post office—and will do until the end of the week. She has been a postmistress for 19 and a half years and is retiring. I suspect that if it were not for the fact that the job is not as attractive as it used to be, Olga would carry on. The village is lovely and she will stay there, but she is getting out of the post office business. She found it difficult to sell the business, but has managed it now. One of her great concerns was that the job was poorly paid. That is certainly the case in some small rural areas, which means that the work is not attractive. Often Olga would pay out more in one social security payment than she received for running the post office that week. I think that in that position I might find my morale was sapped.
Olga also runs a cafe, and, of course, in a rural area, such businesses have been kicked by foot and mouth, because tourism has dried up. That is a double agony for rural post offices that have relied on tourism. She sells groceries and newspapers as well. She has no complaints about the extent to which the villagers use the post office. She is grateful for the support that she gets, but she believes that the Government should re-examine the matter of advertising. An advertising campaign could educate people about the advantages of shopping at the post office where there is other business. That would ensure that the post office was profitable and could survive.
If the post office were to be lost and turned into a house—like, no doubt, many in the past 10 years—people would have to travel, and the elderly would be placed at a disadvantage. Running a post office entails enormous responsibility. I imagine that it is only when the shop door closes that some of the real work begins—the paperwork that is essential to its efficient running.
I spoke next to the postmaster at Chatburn, who has run his post office for six years. He believes that the post office side of the business should be expanded, enabling all post offices, wherever they are, to offer all services, including providing car tax discs. Some rural post offices would like that opportunity.
The postmaster also wanted more advice and support on the business side. I know that the Countryside Agency gives some support. Small sums are involved, but the business in question is supposed to find 50 per cent., and it is difficult for a marginal business that does not make much money to find £5,000. Banks will not lend to a business that is not making a profit, with no

101WH
prospect of a return. There is interest in opportunities to upgrade the facilities. People do not want to walk into a dowdy-looking post office, on which no money has been spent for years. The people running them want to get into the 21st century, but cannot do that because they are not making a profit.
The postmaster said that a hole in the wall—or automatic teller machine, as I should probably call it—would be an advantage, and he looks forward to that. There is not one in Chatburn at the moment.
Chipping is another village in my constituency. I spoke to Andrea Cawley today, who, with her husband, has run the post office there for 18 months. They are new to the business and very young. David is about to go on a 460 km bike ride in Vietnam on behalf of MIND. I think that that is typical of people who run post offices: they tend to be enormously charitable with their time. They are community-based people. To do that on behalf of a local charity is superb and I wish him well. Andrea meanwhile will carry on running the post office when he is away—I will not say away enjoying himself. When I asked her what the one thing was that she wanted the Government to do to help her business, she said that she would like a grant to do up the post office and make it more attractive to customers. She mentioned the security aspect too, and said that if she had to upgrade the security in her post office, she was expected to pay. In this day and age, sadly, we must ensure that post offices even in small villages are properly secure and that the people who work in them feel safe.
Will the Minister consider ways in which we can sell post offices more readily? In Pendleton, my own village, the Swan with Two Necks pub acts as the post office and opens in the morning on certain days. Christine, the postmistress, serves the customers with pensions and stamps and is dedicated to the service of the village. If that service were taken away, people would have to travel to Clitheroe, which may not sound a long distance but would be an enormous burden for some elderly people.
Another example is the village of Slaidburn, where the post office closed because it could not make any money, when the postmaster's wife died and he decided that he wanted to retire. It is difficult to find someone to come to a place like Slaidburn to open a post office as a going concern—a traditional post office with a few goods on the side. The village shop was not making much money either, so the two businesses have combined and one hopes that now, with the support of the community, that shop and post office will make a go of it.
Some things became clear from my discussions with postmasters and postmistresses: the long hours that they work, the marginal nature of the shops and the fact that they love their job. In the main, they want to continue doing that job, if they can. The introduction of the odd internet machine in some village post offices will not be the answer, although those post offices that could provide a lottery service might receive a boost.
I will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say about the universal bank and how he believes it will support village post offices. He has heard several questions from hon. Members about how we might make post offices a. more attractive proposition. Soothing words cannot be banked—he must come up
102WH
with more, because the Government will be judged not on what he says but on how many post offices close between now and the next general election.
11.42 am
Mr. Alan Reid: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate.
Post offices, as previous speakers have said, are an integral part of our rural communities. I echo the comment made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) about how long it takes for a letter posted in a remote rural village to get to a house in the same village. It may take several days to arrive. We need to go back to the days of the GPO, when the delivery and collection part of the business and the counters part were integrated. I do not see why a letter posted in a remote village for delivery in the same village or in another village a few miles up the road must be taken hundreds of miles to a big city to be sorted and sent back. Why cannot mail posted on an island, for example, be taken to a local sub-post office on the island and sorted into two batches—one for delivery on the island and the other for the mainland? The mail posted on the island for delivery on the island could be delivered the next day instead of in three or four days, as at present.
I give an example from Ross of Mull, a part of the country that the Minister knows well. If a letter is posted in Fionnphort with a first-class stamp to go to Bunessan, which is only a few miles up the road, the letter is put in the post office van and driven through Bunessan, possibly past the very house to which it is to be delivered. It is taken to the ferry at Craignure and crosses to Oban, whence it is carried 100 or so miles to Glasgow where it is sorted before it does the return journey to be delivered in Bunessan. Even with a first-class stamp, that takes three days. Many local businesses have important business to be transacted and legal requirements for mail to be delivered the next day. Why cannot the mail posted in Fionnphort be taken to the local sub-post office and sorted, and that which has been mailed for elsewhere on Mull collected separately and delivered the next day on Mull?
11.44 am
Mr. Michael Moore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing an important debate. He observed that it might be the first time that we had debated the subject since the election, which is slightly alarming, as is the complete lack of any interest from Labour Members. None of them has sought to speak in the debate. They must either think that the problem has been sorted—if so we wait for the Minister to tell us what he has told them—or be too scared to try to defend the situation.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was generous and graceful enough to concede that post offices had been a mess for some time, and that the problem had not happened since 1997. The uncertainty and worries about the future of post offices have not been resolved in the past four and a half years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome made an important reference to the rally 18 months ago, which demonstrated not only the strength

103WH
of feeling but the concerns of many people from across the United Kingdom. The Government were quick to respond with the promise of a performance and innovation unit report, which duly came. There was a sense that a serious attempt was being made to tackle the problem, yet people still do not know what their future holds. Now they ask whether all that Government activity after the rally was simply clever politics, not good government.
Many businesses feel extremely insecure. The balance has swung from people using their income from the post office side of the business to subsidise the rest of it to the other way round. People may have diversified into other businesses—gifts and cards, for example—but tourism has declined seriously during the past couple of years. I will not blame the Government for that, but it adds extra stresses and strains to those businesses. It means not only that continuing business security is unknown, but that the retirement of many who work in such post offices is blighted. Many who expected to have a business that they could sell on, and who live literally above the shop, now do not know whether they have a business asset or a wasting asset that they will not be able to pass on.
In July, the Minister was kind enough to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and me to discuss some of our concerns. My hon. Friend was briefly in the Chamber, but has had to attend to other business. He recently received a letter from Mervyn Jones, a gentleman who is a constituent of mine but whose business is in my hon. Friend's constituency. He is the local organiser for the National Federation of SubPostmasters. His letter states that
"we seem to inch our way ever closer to a decision, but the progress remains painfully slow. Many more Post Offices have closed while this uncertainty has continued. The situation is now most urgent".
When the Minister met us, he was keen to highlight many important initiatives that have been touched on this morning, such as the universal bank and the pilots in Leicestershire. I hope that he will use the debate as a good opportunity to try to allay some of the fears that the initiatives have been kicked into the long grass or, to mix my metaphors, have somewhat run into the sand. People do not yet understand the danger. The Government are not sending them the signals to convince them that they have a proper commercial future.
We are talking not about the world's greediest entrepreneurs, but about people who want to make a decent return on their business and to be able to continue to provide the social services that are informally expected of them. Examples have already been given. In my home town, Innerleithen, Douglas and Ann Coulter, the local sub-postmaster and his wife, are experts in helping old people, and anyone else who comes in, to fill out difficult Government forms. They do not get paid for that, and do not expect to, but they provide a vital additional service that no one else in a rural area can.
I understand that the contractual deadline for the universal bank is the end of this year. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that, and focus on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and
104WH
Frome about whether a capped amount will be provided to the Post Office to pay for that initiative. If it is capped and there are incentives for the Post Office to get many people on to something different, the initiative will not do what has been promised, or tackle the serious problems of the move from existing benefit books to a new system. The chances for confusion and commercial insecurity are great.
The situation must be sorted out, and we need clear signposts about what is going on. The Government cannot suggest that they have not been repeatedly warned. Earlier this year, Postcom carried out a useful survey, to which I and my hon. Friends contributed, about the nature of sub-post offices around the country. Postcom paid its first visit to Scotland when it came to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
Postcom's report makes it clear that the worries expressed in our part of south-east Scotland were repeated up and down the country. Time is running out. The times are desperate for sub-post offices. Sub-postmasters are not naturally demonstrative and the rally 18 months ago was a very big event for them. They do not want to have to get on to coaches and trains again and return to London, but if the Minister is unable to remove uncertainty for them, I fear that that will happen.
11.51 am
Sir Robert Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on giving profile to this matter. I share the concern of some of my colleagues that the Government got through their first Parliament in the normal way: being seen to be active, but not yet delivering. If they do not deliver in this Parliament, they will create much cynicism and disappointment in rural areas and areas where sub-post offices are getting desperate.
I will sit down soon so that the Minister will have longer to wind up the debate, but I press him to comment on the progress that has been made on the grants scheme introduced in the summer, and how much of that money has already been allocated. Some of us are worried that the scheme is reaching its limit and needs more money to achieve its goals, as it deals with problems such as start-up costs.
I reinforce a point about which the Scotland Office showed complete complacency during yesterday's Scottish questions. I hope that that was an aberration that does not reflect collective Government responsibility, and that this Minister still has serious concerns. Ministers' reassurances, which sound great, that people will still be able to use their sub-post office to collect their benefit will be meaningless if their sub-post office is closed.
11.53 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I echo the congratulations that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and add to his my appreciation of the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister for Employment and the Regions. He always gave the

105WH
impression that he was doing things and was unfailingly courteous when we brought problems to him. I hope that his successor will react similarly.
It will be useful to reflect on the basic statistics on closures. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister a couple of weeks ago and he has helpfully provided the up-to-date position on the number of closures, which have steadily increased in the past five years. There were 175 in the mid-1990s, 163 in the financial year ending March 1997, when the Government took office, and 547 in the financial year ending March 2001. That is much larger than the figure recorded for any other financial year. The only figure that approaches it is 473 during the 1991–92 recession.
Why has the rate of closures accelerated? Post offices close for many reasons, including personal circumstances of the owners, such as ageing. They may want to convert their businesses to domestic use and so on. We must find the reason for the trend and why it is so heavily upward. In the early 1990s, the explanation could have been the recession and falling demand, but in the past few years the economy has been doing relatively well. The only possible explanation is the loss of confidence in the post office network resulting from the expectation that income would fall drastically in 2003 and thereafter. I can think of no other explanation, but if the Minister has one, it would be useful to know it.
The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) prompted the thought that the problems for rural areas will not be limited to those of the post office network. Anyone who follows closely the debate on Consignia finances knows that it is in deep financial trouble. Its senior executives are openly touting the idea that they may have to cut back on the universal service obligation. If that happens, rural communities will lose not only their local sub-post offices, but access to the national service of post distribution. That would be a major crisis for rural areas, but is a subject for another debate.
I want to focus specifically on the financing of the post office network. The basic sums are that the post office network will lose around £430 million of income when ACT is introduced, plus the footfall income from that, and we must focus on how that loss will be compensated, if it is. There are three elements to the story. The first is the specific provisions that the Government proposed to help post offices on the margin that are faced with closure. I understand that a very small fund has been set aside for that purpose—I believe that it is £2 million a year. Will that be increased when the system comes into operation in 2003, or is it a fixed annual sum? What will be the scale of operation of the subsidy? Can the Minister give us clearer guidelines on how it will operate? Members of Parliament will be part of the system, so it will be useful to know exactly how it will work. However, we are talking about small amounts of money.
In addition, the Government are putting approximately £15 million into inner-city refurbishment over three years, which, again, is useful but small, What will happen to those sub-post offices—they are the majority—in neither inner cities nor rural areas? For most of us who live elsewhere, sub-post offices are a critical part of the community. The message that I receive from Post Office Counters is that there will be large-scale consolidation of many suburban and urban
106WH
post offices. They will be grouped in the same way that hospitals were amalgamated and there will be major loss of welfare if that happens. Those sub-post offices are not covered in the subsidy or support arrangements and it would useful to know exactly what is happening on that front.
Potential subsidisation of the network is one component. The second is new business and there have been some imaginative and positive developments. There have been pilot schemes for Government services for general practitioners, the internet and so on. Those are valuable and innovative and I have no criticism, except to question how much additional income they will bring in. I understand that current estimates are £35 million over three years or just over £10 million a year. There is vast disparity between the £430 million that the post office network will lose and the £10 million to £15 million a year that it will receive from the two additional sources of funding.
The third and most important component is the universal bank, about which there are many unanswered questions. Whenever I ask parliamentary questions, I receive answers that are full of references to commercial confidentiality—in other words, we cannot be told what is going on. That is understandable to some degree, but means that there is virtually no accountability in the process.
There are two aspects of the universal bank. First, there are basic bank accounts. I do not understand how they will work and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that. Secondly, there are brand accounts, about which there has been controversy. Will it be possible for a Barclays bank account-holder in a market town to open a Barclays account at the local post office? If someone wants to open a Barclays basic account in a local village and has not previously had a bank account, will it be able to be used in the Barclays network, or will it be more circumscribed? What functions will it have? Will direct billing be available through this network because it will be crucial to obtain discounts from utilities?
What are the banks putting into this? The banks have said that they are contributing £180 million over five years, which sounds like a lot of money. However, there is a lot at stake. As the Government know, the banks are negotiating hard on the terms of their regulation under the new Paycom system, and £180 million would be a small price to pay for an easier regulatory regime. Some of us are suspicious of how much the banks are doing.
Mr. Evans: Will pensioners be able to access money free of charge through automated teller machines? There has been a recent culture of banks trying to charge as much as they possibly can for the withdrawal of money, and pensioners on limited incomes will find those charges disproportionate.
Dr. Cable: That matter is shrouded in a fog of obscurity, but I believe that the basic bank accounts will not have charges. There will also be no charge to use the Post Office card account, which I shall discuss in a moment. It would be helpful if the Minister put everyone out of their misery by confirming that there will be no charges.
The Post Office card account is a key driver, and the Government control it, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome was right to press the

107WH
Minister. There are two important issues relating to the card account. First, to what extent are direct debits permissible with such an account? Secondly, the scale of the operation is crucial to the issue of financial exclusion. Almost 10 million people have no current account. Certainly, 5 million people have no financial services provision. The rumour that we have heard is that the number of people who will be allowed or encouraged—it is not clear which—to have a card account will be no more than 2 million. If the figure is at that end of the scale, it will hopelessly fail to meet the Government's financial exclusion objectives. Is there a notional number? Where does it come from? Is there a minimum or maximum figure? What scale of operation are we discussing, and who will determine that scale?
The scale of the operation is important to its funding. The assumption on which some of us have been working is that the Government will put £100 million into the system, which would be welcome new income for the post office network. However, that figure is predicated on the assumption of 2 million card accounts. If the Government put in three or four times that amount, it would fully compensate the network for the loss of its automated credit transfer income. The scale is crucial, and I hope that the Minister will explain it precisely. We could be discussing a minimal, token gesture or a fully fledged, highly comprehensive and extremely valuable replacement for ACT. It is unclear where we are on that spectrum.
The post office network has been dealt a deep wound to which there have been various attempts to apply tourniquets and Elastoplast over the past few months. We must know whether the flow of blood will be stemmed by the various initiatives that the Government are proposing.
12.2 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a fellow Essex Member of Parliament to the Chair, Mr. Amess.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate, which provides a valuable opportunity to question the Minister on an issue that is of considerable concern to many of us. He mentioned his surprise that this is the first time that the issue has been debated in this Parliament. All of us would stress that that should not be taken to indicate any lessening in the concern about the future of the sub-post office network. He also mentioned that the issue was raised regularly throughout the previous Parliament following the Government's announcement about ACT in May 1999. About 18 months ago, we had a rally in Methodist Central Hall of about 2,000 sub-postmasters, who came here to demonstrate how important they felt the matter to be. On that occasion, we devoted our Opposition day debate on the Floor of the House to the future of post offices. During that debate, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, in response to concerns raised by Members on both sides of the House stated:
"Post office closures have nothing to do with the move to ACT in 2003."—[Official Report, 12 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 378.]
108WH
He went on to say that closures were bound to happen because that was part of normal commercial life—businesses would always open and close—and that there was no real reason for concern.
Even then, many hon. Members were shocked by that staggering complacency, but in the 18 months that have followed, the rate of sub-post office closures has accelerated severely. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) cited the figure for the number of closures to the year ending March 2001–547—which was far higher than in any previous year. We have even more up-to-date figures. Six days ago, the Minister gave an answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), revealing that another 119 post offices closed in April to June 2001—the first quarter of this financial year. There is no sign of the trend being reversed.
Why does it matter? Obviously, it is sad to lose any business, but sub-post offices are absolutely vital. The 17,500 that exist are roughly divided between the rural and the urban, although, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, several fall somewhere in between. Each one plays a vital part in its local community, and its loss would substantially deprive that community of vital services.
Like most hon. Members who have spoken, I represent a rural community, so I am familiar with the enormously important central role that is played by village post offices in remote rural areas. My constituency contains a large area consisting of remote, scattered villages with poor public transport facilities. In villages such as Bradwell and Tillingham—I am not going to take hon. Members on a tour of my constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did, although I feel much better informed about it as a result—the loss of the post office often removes the life of the village, because it represents not only a place of business where people go to deal with mail or receive benefits, but the centre of village life. It may provide a meeting place for elderly people who cannot get out of the village, or its postmistress may supply advice. It is such a crucial part of life that many villages struggle to survive its loss.
Eighteen months ago, I was given the opportunity to open a village sub-post office—a replacement for one that had closed three years previously—in Great Totham in my constituency. Businesses are still opening, which is welcome, but the net loss each year is leading to a gradual decline in the overall number. Even if the Government create new opportunities for sub-post offices, too many may already have been lost to take advantage of them.
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the survey published yesterday by the Countryside Agency, which stated that as a result of the closures nearly 400,000 people in the countryside live more than one and a half miles from a sub-post office. That will create particular problems for elderly people, who will find it difficult to access their benefit payments.
The reasons why sub-post offices are closing have already been touched on. It is partly because they are experiencing the pressures that all small business now face. They are businesses like any other, and must cope with red tape, regulations and various other burdens, but the major reason for closures is the switch to ACT

109WH
from 2003. The Minister who spoke in the debate to which I referred said that that cannot be the reason, because ACT has yet to be put in place, but the mere announcement of the switch has blighted the prospects for many sub-post offices. Those who want to sell their business on reaching retirement age are often unable to do so.
I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that his constituent, who is about to retire, has found someone to take over the business, but in many cases that proves impossible. In my own constituency, for example, a sub-post office closed but no one was willing to take it on. To some extent, the problem is caused by banks advising that such businesses are no longer viable. Given the uncertainty about the future, banks are reluctant to lend money to those who want to take on sub-post offices. That creates huge problems for those who are currently running them, many of whom may have invested their life savings in the business.
Mr. Heath: It is worth stressing that point: it is difficult to establish the business case for investing in a sub-post office while such uncertainty remains. However, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the banks that are turning down loan applications are the very banks that are supposedly committed to the principle of the universal bank—the alleged saviour of such businesses? There seems to be a dichotomy in the thinking of clearing banks.
Mr. Whittingdale: That is a good point. Although high street clearing banks have now signed up to the concept of the universal bank, they have shown a lack of enthusiasm for it ever since it was mooted. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, they appear not to be giving the concept the 100 per cent. support that it needs if it is to succeed.
On retirement, many of those who have devoted their lives to their sub-post offices will be unable to realise the value of the asset into which they have put all their money throughout their working lives.
I want to touch briefly on the very good report commissioned by the PIU, which outlined a number of opportunities for sub-post offices, such as the potential for e-commerce and internet sites. All such suggestions are welcome and I hope that they will be developed.
Mr. Adrian Flook: I apologise for not being here sooner, Mr. Amess. The explanation, in part, is that I am acting as host to Miss Alex Lawrence, who is here from Somerset as part of a "teenager at work" day.
The debate is not just about inclusivity in a village context. Although Taunton is a very rural constituency, the town itself is also suffering through the closure of sub-post offices. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem affects not only rural but urban areas, and—more importantly—that young children and teenagers will also find it difficult to access the services if the sub-post offices no longer exist?
Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely agree. The problem afflicts all communities—rural and urban—and will afflict all sections of the population.
110WH
I do not want to speak for too long, as I am anxious to give the Minister the maximum opportunity to respond to the questions raised so far. However, I want briefly to discuss new opportunities for sub-post offices to win business—a matter touched on earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned road tax licences. I asked at my local sub-post office what the Government could do to make life easier and was immediately told that every week several people who came in to renew their road tax had to be turned away. That is a specific suggestion.
The Government must address questions about the future of the universal bank, which could offer salvation to sub-post offices. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that everything had gone quiet since the election. That is not entirely true: comment in the newspapers has, if anything, increased our concern. About six weeks ago, The Sunday Telegraph ran a piece headed "Universal Bank in doubt". It said:
"The Government is considering scrapping plans for a Universal Bank, which would provide basic accounts".
We learned a couple of weeks ago that responsibility for the universal bank had been switched from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department for Work and Pensions, which gave rise to the headline, "Darling sent in to save plan for Universal Bank".
I hope that the Minister will address these serious questions. Will he give us a guarantee that the universal bank proposal is still on track and will go ahead? When will it be in place? It is important to sort that out. It is not enough to wait until 2003 when the switch to ACT takes place. We need reassurance now, and we must have the arrangement in place as soon as possible.
A concern that has already been mentioned is that a limit may be placed on the number of eligible users of the Post Office card account. Clearly, any restriction of that kind would represent a huge threat to the potential income of sub-postmasters. Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no limit and that all those who are eligible to use the card accounts will be able to do so? Will he also tell us something about the remuneration terms for sub-postmasters who carry out universal bank transactions? I understand that some matters are still under negotiation, but it is not good enough for him to continue to answer by simply saying that all this is commercially confidential. We need information soon.
Can the Minister give us an estimate of how much the overall package will be worth to sub-postmasters? To what extent will it restore the enormous financial loss that the switch to ACT will cause? Finally, if there is a delay in getting the proposals up and running, is he prepared to delay the switch to ACT until the problems have been sorted out? The clock is ticking. Sub-post offices are closing every day. I know that hon. Members want to listen to the Minister, so I hand over to him to reply.
12.17 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate on the future of sub-post offices. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on his appointment to the Conservative Front Bench. I will

111WH
seek to be as expeditious as possible, given the range of questions put to me. I will seek to answer as many of them as time allows; the clock is indeed ticking.
This is the second Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to which I have had the pleasure of replying. I wish to place on record my tribute to the work that he does on behalf of his constituents. I thank him for his kind remarks about my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions, and join in paying tribute to his endeavours.
I listened carefully to the speeches and welcome the opportunity to respond to as many questions as possible. The concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome centre on the need to maintain the sub-post office network and to ensure a viable, long-term future for it. His comments reflected the concerns of not only his constituents but all those who live in the more rural areas of the United Kingdom, for whom the local post office is a focal point in the community. As all hon. Members are aware, the sub-post office network plays a vital role in every region of the United Kingdom.
I disagree with the substantive point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). The sub-post office network would not be better dealt with by the devolved Administrations. I think that, if anything, the network argues for the level of integration that is possible in the United Kingdom. There is simply a philosophical divide on that issue between me and Plaid Cymru.
I pay tribute to the work by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). He missed no opportunity to talk about the important work of sub-postmasters in his constituency. I shall make a brief diversion from the substantive issues by also paying tribute to the charitable work of his constituent who is travelling to Vietnam. Having cycled in that country, I simply advise him to ensure that he has a good saddle.
We all agree that sub-post offices have a key role. As hon. Members know, post offices serve 28 million people every week. All those who have spoken, the Government, Post Office Ltd., sub-postmasters and post office customers are committed to the network's survival. Let us be clear that we face substantive challenges but the Government remain as committed as they were in the last Parliament to a sustainable network of post offices throughout the UK.
The network must be able to adapt and take account of the changes that some hon. Members have mentioned, not least changes in lifestyle, customer preferences and new ways of doing business. The traditional business of post offices needs to respond to those changing requirements, changes in society and the challenge of new opportunities as a result of changes in technology.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about post office closures. It is indeed the case that net closures of sub-post offices in the year to 26 March 2001 totalled 547. Of those, 441 were rural and 106 were urban-based offices, according to the Post
112WH
Office's revised traditional definition of rural offices as those serving communities with fewer than 10,000 residents. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the definition of rural post offices. I shall raise that with the management of Post Office Ltd. and write to him.
Some of those closures cannot be avoided, but a significant portion are temporary, as designated by the Post Office. Indeed, 109 offices reopened between April 2000 and March 2001. Of the closures in the year, only four were designated permanent as a result of a Post Office decision. In all other cases, there is scope for reopening should a suitable applicant come forward within 12 to 18 months.
The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome, for Ribble Valley and for Maldon and East Chelmsford spoke about closures more generally. Net closures in the second quarter of the current year were 56, of which 47 were rural and nine urban offices. In the first quarter, there were 119 net closures, comprising 94 rural and 25 urban offices. That is a significant reduction, quarter on quarter. In addition, total net closures of 175 for the half-year are well below those for the corresponding period of last year, when 299 post offices closed. We should not read too much into any quarterly or half-yearly figure alone, but I hope that we can all welcome those reductions.
A range of new initiatives has been introduced, including the £2 million Government fund to support community volunteering initiatives to maintain and reopen post office facilities. I hope to return to that in responding to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Other measures include the abolition by the Post Office from 1 April of the introductory payment of 25 per cent. of the first year's remuneration. That makes sub-post offices more attractive to prospective purchasers.
The Government are pressing forward with work to implement all the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit. I agree that the report was extremely worth while and I assure hon. Members that a great deal of expeditious work is being done to implement the recommendations to modernise the post office network. That is happening in close consultation with Consignia, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Postal Services Commission, the Consumer Council for Postal Services and other relevant bodies. The new products and services identified and the work that has been set in train provide a basis for reinventing the network and safeguarding its future.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) is new to the House, but has clearly already learned how to grab the attention of the Minister responsible for postal services. I know very well the area that he mentioned. Indeed, I have experience of the postal service in the Ross of Mull, having received both my 0-grade and highers results in that locality—that was in the days when highers results turned up. I will raise his concern with the Consignia management with great pleasure and take forward his specific point on postal services on the Isle of Mull.

113WH
The first question of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome focused on the respective roles of Departments in advancing the universal bank project, and it may be helpful to give some clarity on programme management. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is responsible for delivery of universal banking services as part of the wider Government programme of benefit payment migration to automated credit transfer and ensuring that benefit payment recipients can continue to receive their cash at post offices. That has been stated before, and it remains the Government's policy. That is a new role for the Department for Work and Pensions, while the Department of Trade and Industry continues to have shareholder responsibility for Consignia and sponsorship of the post office network.
The development shows that we are moving in the correct direction on the universal bank and demonstrates the Government-wide commitment to the universal bank project, which will ensure that benefit claimants can continue to draw their benefits in cash at post offices when benefits are paid into bank accounts. I am happy to reiterate that assertion today. It is positive that DWP has now taken overall project management responsibility, given its locus as a particular client of the project. As Consignia shareholder, the DTI will continue to be responsible and take a keen interest in the project, ensuring that it can he implemented successfully through the network of sub-post offices.
Dr. Cable: To clarify the situation, will it be the Minister or the Department for Work and Pensions that sets the target for the number of Post Office card accounts, and what will that target be?
Mr. Alexander: Those discussions are continuing between Departments, because different bodies are involved. It will interest the hon. Gentleman to know that working relationships are positive and close. I will meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this afternoon, which is merely a reflect ion of a continuous series of constructive discussions.
It is important to recognise the significance of the universal bank project, particularly to the future of the sub-post office, and I pay tribute to hon. Members who have done so. It is a substantial, multi-strand project that will depend on many interlocking commercial relationships, not least between Post Office Ltd. and the individual banks. I am glad to see that the memorandum of understanding has been signed
114WH
between DWP and Post Office Ltd., and between Post Office Ltd. and its suppliers of computing and other services.
Mr. Heath: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, but he ducked the question about the target. Will he answer simply yes or no: will there be a cap to the number of Post Office basic accounts?
Mr. Alexander: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that when I address his second question, which related to that specific point.
More generally as a preface, it was inevitable that the performance and innovation unit report would generate significant publicity. However, it would be deeply misguided to see that necessary and diligent work as a change of Government tone or policy. We have worked relentlessly to drive forward the policy, because we share the view that the universal bank has a critical role to play in the network's future.
However, the nature of the commercial relationships involved in the establishment of the universal bank means that many discussions cannot be conducted in public. If negotiations were conducted in public, it would not only imperil the project but delay it when we are determined to work to our target of 2003. I assure hon. Members that those many-faceted negotiations are being driven forward with urgency. Good progress is being made, and the project remains on track for implementation in time for the ACT change of 2003.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the universal bank's application. Those matters are being considered in the context of an overall migration and marketing strategy, on which much work is under way. It would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of those discussions, but it will remain our policy to encourage benefit recipients to use the accounts that best meet their needs.
On the new post office-based simple bank account and the PAT 14 basic accounts—named for policy action team 14—being developed by the banks, these are designed for everyday transactions, are accessible across post office counters and are free of charge to the user. Without post office access, those basic accounts will not achieve sufficient market penetration by themselves adequately to address the challenge of financial exclusion. The universal bank will provide a range of banking services that will cater for as wide a range of customers as possible. It will bring people currently outwith bank accounts into the financial mainstream by providing easier access to basic bank accounts.
The agreement with the institutions is that it will be possible for applicants to begin opening an account—
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.

Human Cloning
12.30 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate you, Mr. Amess, on your elevation. It has been a long time coming and well deserved. I shall miss you in other places.
Human cloning has raised much heat recently through the media and requires urgent Government consideration. [Interruption.]
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. Would those people leaving the Chamber kindly go about their business more quietly? We owe that courtesy to Dr. Gibson.
Dr. Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Amess.
Human cloning includes both so-called therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Although they are based on the same technique—the addition of a nucleus to an enucleate egg cell—they have completely different aims. They involve the production of an embryo, but in therapeutic cloning, tissues or groups of cells are created for the purpose of treating some chronic diseases. In this place we recently discussed issues surrounding therapeutic cloning during the debate on stem cell research. In that case, cloning means transplanting the newly created tissue back to the patient. There is no prospect of the patient having an immune rejection because the tissue is genetically similar. It can also be transferred to other patients with the aid of immune drugs to suppress any response.
Reproductive cloning aims to allow the embryo to develop into an adult and involves the creation—in theory, at least—of an individual who comprises exactly the same genes as another person, alive or dead. We need to appreciate that two individuals with the same genes do not always turn out to be exactly alike. Identical twins have identifiable differences because of the great influence of environmental factors during the transformation from zygote to full adult. Those factors have a great effect on the development of tissues, characteristics and so forth.
It is argued that reproductive cloning might be the only way that some people are able to have a child. We currently have in-vitro fertilisation, which is legal, but there are severe ethical, legal, scientific and political problems with allowing reproductive cloning. Dolly the sheep was produced only after many unsuccessful attempts-270 to produce one poor little sheep. Imagine the trauma if that were to happen with humans. Yes, we have also produced pigs and cows and, indeed, America now has a whole industry dedicated to reproducing a tame pet that might have been run over. One's cat or dog can be recreated for a price. It is, of course, never quite the same as one's pet moggy but, because of the genetic influence, it sort of looks like it.
An industry has been established to fulfil narcissistic ambitions of self-perpetuation—that is precisely what it is. The technology is not state of the art. Many of the animals produced display lethargy, obesity, arthritic conditions and failed sexual prowess. There have been miscarriages, abortions, stillbirths and genetically abnormal offspring, yet we only hear of the one great success.
116WH
An Italian scientist, Professor Antinori, is swanning around the conference circuit claiming to be able to judge embryos as fully normal and worthy of implantation in the mother, but many defects emerge only after birth during the development of the organism. In August 2001, an article in The Guardian referred to the same "maverick scientist" as promising a human clone by the beginning of 2002 and claiming that by the end of 2002 he will be able to produce an individual baby whom someone has paid him to create.
There is no reason to suppose that the problems that have been created during the development of pigs and cows would not apply to humans. It is not an exact science and we cannot turn back the clock in respect of DNA taken from an adult and put into a new cell nucleus to create a completely new organism. Problems can happen genetically on the way.
No children are born with their total genetic make-up being known in advance. Before birth, there is the mystery of which sex the child will be, the hair colour, the size, the looks and all the matters that make human beings different from each other. It is true that technologies can select embryos that contain certain genes. For example, the gene for a certain type of muscular dystrophy can be spotted. If it is, the individuals involved will be informed and, after discussion and advice, choices will be made. Under British law, we do not condone or allow the positive selection of certain characteristics.
In the first flush of human genetics earlier this century came the discovery of family trees where genes can be traced. The famous geneticist, Herman Muller, with whom I worked in Indiana, received a Nobel prize for discovering that radiation caused gene mutations. His book entitled "The Control of Human Heredity and Evolution" states:
"For any group of people who have a rational attitude towards matters of reproduction and who also have a genuine sense of their own responsibility to the next and subsequent generations, the means exist right now of achieving a much greater speedier and more significant genetic improvement of the population by the use of selection."
In some ways, that is close to eugenic arguments. I am sure that hon. Members can imagine some of the arguments we had in our coffee breaks about what I thought was Herman Muller's over-enthusiasm for being able to fashion individuals genetically. He referred in his book to a co-worker who argued that cells could be spotted with intelligent genes and non-intelligent genes and that such cells could be transplanted. Science created that excitement, but as hon. Members know, it can sometimes be a few steps too fast for the society in which it is being developed.
Hon. Members will recall that the Government, together with the chief medical officer, the human genetics advisory committee and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, recommended regulations that backed therapeutic cloning and said that legislation was needed to ban reproductive cloning to contain the public's anxieties about the cloning technique as perpetuated by articles in various newspapers and television programmes. All credible British scientists agree that it is essential to prevent charlatans such as Antinori from conducting reckless and dangerous experiments on women and children.

117WH
In 1990, when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed, no one considered cell nuclear replacement, although it had been talked about in the scientific community since the 1960s when people carried out the technology with frogs and other so-called lower organisms. People obviously said that that could happen one day with a human being. That day is here now. In nuclear replacement technology, an egg cell receives its DNA from another cellular source and the egg cell develops into embryonic tissue or, indeed, into an embryo.
The Act, however, defined embryos as being the result of fertilisation—an egg and a sperm fusing together. When it was published, that was the only way in which to produce embryos—something that is now, of course, outdated. The pro-life movement has seized on that and claims that regulations could not be passed about cloning because the Act does not cover the nuclear replacement technique. If that is so, the argument is either that the technique is legal as it is not prohibited under the Act and scientists should be allowed to use it and be granted licences to undertake research and treat patients, or that cloning of any kind is illegal because the Act prohibits the splitting of embryos and other international laws and agreements prohibit cloning. The Government must make a clear decision. A judicial review is under way and a decision is imminent. I look forward to the Minister explaining how the Government will act as a result of the review.
I fear the judgment of lawyers and doubt whether the intentions of the 1990 Act will justify the necessary regulation to cover therapies involving nuclear replacement. Let us hope that pro-life groups do not turn back the clock and make cloning illegal, thus preventing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority from granting licences for clinical research into diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. We have had those arguments in the House many times during the past year. I hope that the matter does not require primary legislation, that the Minister can confirm that it will be covered by the Act and that we can ban reproductive cloning. As the Government have been positive and supportive of science and medical research, I hope that we shall not lose this opportunity to clear up the dilemma that we face today.
12.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I, too, welcome you to the Chair of Westminster Hall, Mr. Amess. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for having introduced today's debate. We have always said that it is important to debate such issues in depth and to take an open approach. I know that my hon. Friend fully supports the idea of exploring the issues seriously, as has happened over the past 18 months or so.
Human cloning is a serious matter and we in this country have given it a great deal of attention. In the debate on 17 November last year, my hon. Friend said that cloning is a difficult term to define. We have tried to be clear about the definitions involved in debates.
The creation of an embryo using cell nuclear replacement for research purposes only is commonly called therapeutic cloning. Embryos are not used
118WH
directly in treatment, but stem cells can be extracted and used for research into potentially life-saving treatments, as in the cases that my hon. Friend mentioned—Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and incurable cancers—which might be tackled in that way. Enabling such research was a key consideration in introducing the regulations.
Cloning a human being, or reproductive cloning—the production of a cloned child—requires the implantation of a cloned embryo in the uterus. That is considered unacceptable throughout the world and will remain illegal in the United Kingdom. That is the Government's policy.
At the end of last year, three full debates on those issues were held in Parliament. The accepted view was that the standard of those debates was extremely high in both Houses, with many learned contributions full of expertise and knowledge and a great deal of energy expended by people who had clearly thought deeply about the complex ethical issues involved. The conclusion of a substantial majority of Members of both Houses was that permitting embryo research into potentially life-saving therapies for serious disease is right, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001 came into force on 31 January this year.
The regulations enable the HFEA to issue a licence under the strict conditions imposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 for the purposes of increasing knowledge about the development of embryos or about serious disease, or enabling any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious diseases. Since the regulations were passed, the HFEA has received two applications for research under the extended regulations. However, I understand that those applications involve not cloning embryos but using embryos that are already available.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research has taken evidence and intends to report by the end of the year. There is certainly no lack of interest in the matter, and it is right that it should continue to receive the most careful attention.
The regulations do not allow reproductive cloning, or the creation of a human being using cloning techniques, and the Government are clear that reproductive cloning cannot take place in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend said, Professor Antinori said recently that he wants to carry out such treatment here in the UK, but that will not be permitted. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to state that clearly on the record.
My hon. Friend mentioned the judicial review brought by the ProLife Alliance late last year, which was heard in the High Court last week. The first aspect of the challenge related to the 2001 regulations, but that aspect was not pursued in the case. The regulations remain in force and permit the HFEA to issue licences for embryo research into serious diseases. The HFEA said that it would not take decisions about applications for licences for research that involves cloning techniques until after the judicial review. It would consider applications without making decisions, but no such applications were received so the matter has not arisen.
The second part of the challenge by the ProLife Alliance relates to the definition of an embryo under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That

119WH
covers embryos created by cell nuclear replacement into an egg, which was the technique that was used to produce Dolly the sheep. The permission for a judicial review was granted on the grounds that there was an arguable case that raised matters of public importance. The judgment on the second limb of the judicial review has been reserved. We do not yet know the outcome, although it is expected in weeks rather than months, so we should know the outcome soon.
The current ban on reproductive cloning has two sources. The 1990 Act itself prohibits cell nuclear replacement into an embryo. If the nuclear replacement is into an egg—as was the case with Dolly the sheep—the Government believe that, given that the procedure will result in the creation of an embryo, it must be licensed by the HFEA. Of course, that is the matter before the court in the judicial review. I understand that some of the legal arguments centred on the legislation's purpose rather than its literal construction. The judge will consider that carefully.
The HFEA made it clear that it will not, as a matter of policy, issue licences for reproductive cloning. However, given the considerable public and parliamentary concern about the matter, the Government have stated their firm commitment to put the reproductive cloning ban on a statutory footing, and intend to introduce a Bill to do that as soon as parliamentary time permits.
It is true that there are different national approaches to embryo and stem cell research. They reflect the differing legal, historic and religious approaches throughout the world. The international bioethics committee of UNESCO reported on the matter earlier this year. It concluded that every society has a right and a duty to debate and decide on ethical matters with which it is confronted, and that embryonic stem cell research is a subject on which national debate is desirable. We have taken forward that approach in the United Kingdom. The round table meeting of science Ministers at UNESCO last month reaffirmed the unanimous commitment to the prohibition of human reproductive cloning. However, given the lack of international agreement on the status of the embryo, the UNESCO bioethics committee did not recommend international regulation of embryonic stem cell research now, but it considered that if such research was considered to be permissible following the national debate, it should take place only in the context of a state-sponsored regulatory system. In our case, that is the HFEA and, therefore, we are fully compliant with the international recommendations.
Later this month, the United Nations will consider proposals for developing a United Nations convention to prohibit human reproductive cloning. Developments are gradually spreading throughout the word and there is abhorrence for human reproductive cloning.
For the past 25 years, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of assisted conception and related research. However, that does not mean that we are liberal. We have developed a system of strict legal control and licensing that covers all aspects of treatment and research. We have the most comprehensive legal controls of any European country. The regulatory system followed the fullest and most wide-ranging debate and public consultation possible on all the matters in the UK in the early 1980s.
120WH
Such consultation and discussion has continued for the past 20 years. Clearly, the matters concern the British public, as well as parliamentarians at Westminster. We must continue to have an open, wide-ranging and informed debate with the public.
Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for securing the debate. I concur with what the Minister has said. The Government have indicated that they will swiftly introduce a statutory ban. Does the Minister agree that that will give the United Kingdom a completeness of regulation that will put us at the forefront, particularly in comparison with other European countries? It ill behoves representatives of other countries that, unlike the United Kingdom, have, as yet, made no effort in statute to introduce the regulation, to criticise the steps that we have taken through regulations to ensure that responsible and effective scientific research with limits is conducted in the United Kingdom.
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It has been suggested that our regulations will encourage reproductive cloning elsewhere. That is incorrect. It is vital to have a transparent, open and acknowledged system of regulation and licensing, so that the important issues that the Committee has been discussing can be addressed within a proper framework. If that system is put in place, the country will know that such issues are dealt with in accordance with our society's views. For instance, we must strike the right balance between research and the important ethical considerations that are relevant to this sensitive and delicate area. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of the development of a robust and rigorous system of licensing, which means that we can continue to make progress.
On research, the Government firmly believe that both embryo and adult stem cell research is necessary if we are to discover how to re-programme cells—which might be taken from any hon. Member present—to treat the very serious illnesses and disorders for which there are currently no effective treatments. The possibility of being able to do that is very exciting and, more significantly, is of fundamental importance to people who are suffering from serious illnesses, and to their families.
Following careful debate and consideration of such issues, both internationally and in the United Kingdom, the Government have introduced regulations that have the potential to make a substantial and positive impact on the treatment of illness and disability. That will greatly benefit the people of our country. The Government have got the balance right.
We have had a mature debate about delicate and sensitive matters, and it is crucial that we keep them under review. We must continue to debate them as the science develops, and we must ensure that we encapsulate our scientific advances within a legal framework that protects the rights and interests of everyone. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has had the opportunity to raise these issues.
12.52 pm
Sitting suspended.

Zimbabwe
1 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Since 11 September, the world's attention has been, first, on events in America, and, thereafter, on events in the middle east and Afghanistan. That is understandable but it is important that we do not forget the current crisis in Zimbabwe and the descent of that country into virtual anarchy. It has been removed from the front pages; indeed, it has pretty well been removed from the pages of every newspaper. In spite of events elsewhere, we must now look carefully at what is happening in that troubled country, and, above all, at the plight of the Zimbabwean people. Britain has an important and almost unique role to play, and Ministers have to show a great deal of initiative and imagination.
When President Mugabe first won office, Zimbabwe seemed to have everything—an efficient infrastructure, hugely rich mining reserves, a thriving agriculture, a robust and independent judiciary, and a free press. Above all, people of all races and political persuasions had a remarkable determination to make a success of that new nation. To be fair to President Mugabe, he helped to foster the mood of national reconciliation and good will, and his early years were characterised by pragmatism and magnanimity. In many ways, Zimbabwe was rightly held up as an example to the rest of Africa.
However, this is a tragic tale of self-inflicted disaster. Twenty years on, Zimbabwe, which was once the bread basket for Africa, is now a basket case, and many parts of the country face starvation. Having once exported food to many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Zimbabwe is now unable to feed itself. Inflation is at more than 100 per cent., unemployment is at more than 60 per cent., exports have collapsed, foreign investment has dried up, and international lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have, essentially, cut Zimbabwe off. Three quarters of Zimbabwe's population live in abject poverty. It is not Mugabe and his cronies who are suffering—they will always be okay—but the people of the country, who face not only poverty and starvation, but, as they have done for several years, state-sponsored anarchy, human rights abuses and a regular breakdown in the rule of law.
I shall touch briefly on the land question and the issue of farm invasions. I then want to talk about the rule of law and the judiciary, and consider the forthcoming presidential elections.
The Zimbabwean Government understandably regard land reform as an emotive issue. Money was on the table in the early years of Mugabe's presidency to address that issue. However, those farms that were repossessed and compulsorily purchased were not handed to small farmers or black Zimbabweans. Five were handed to Mugabe's cronies, and several others were left derelict.
That was the background to the farm invasions, which began in 2000 and gained momentum in the runup to the parliamentary elections last year. Those invasions have been well documented, and I shall not go into a great deal of detail now. Much of the press emphasis has been about white farmers and the dispossession of white farms. However, it is the black
122WH
workers who have suffered most of all. Eight white farmers have been murdered, but thousands of black workers have been evicted, and more than 100 killed. There was overwhelming evidence that the army and police had equipped and directed the war veterans, who, apart from one or two, were not veterans at all, but members of the ZANU-PF militia and youth wing. As in so many documented examples, the police refused time and again to take any action.
We are talking about a human and environmental tragedy, which has been a disaster for the economy. The agriculture sector has been pushed into ruin in many areas, and tourism, which is another important foreign currency earner, has also been demolished.
The other day, I received a moving e-mail dated September from a constituent, Sheila Breen. Her great-niece farms near Bulawayo. She writes:
"Our Government has declared war on her own people—whites, blacks, men and women. Everyone has become a victim. Everyone is suffering and it defies both belief and understanding. Foot and mouth has spread to Beitbridge and there are now a total of 10 infected properties. Despite repeated appeals by veterinary officials and attempts to control the movement of livestock this explosive and highly contagious disease means nothing to the people calling themselves war veterans. War veterans moved cattle from a village onto a cattle ranch nearby and instructed the farmer to remove his 1,000 head of cattle as it was now their farm. This is just one incident of dozens around the country. With this mentality this disease will spread and ravage our country which teeters on the brink of starvation already. It will not only destroy the beef industry but will wipe out beasts which rural subsistence peasants depend on for milk and to till their fields and feed their families."
She goes on to say:
"On a huge ostrich farm nearby the owner and his workers have been evicted, the birds are dying of neglect and there is absolutely nothing that can be done. The police will not attend because it is political. On another property 22 giraffes have died in snares. Last year's tobacco grower of the year in Bulawayo has had his tobacco seed pipes destroyed, hydrants sabotaged and has been ordered to stop his tractors. This man—Zimbabwe's best grower—has been forced to stop production and to lay off his workers. On another farm in Selous, last year's cattle man of the year has been ordered to remove all his cattle from his farm."
The e-mail also states:
"Official estimates are that as many as 70,000 workers and their dependants in this district have been evicted from their homes in the past few months. We know that many have gone off to South Africa and are now being housed in townships round Johannesburg. They have lost their grain, their goats, their chickens, their clothes and belongings. They have had their homes burned to the ground. They have been beaten, kicked and whipped and warned not to speak out."
That moving e-mail sums up the sheer lunacy of what has taken place. President Mugabe will not forgive farmers and their workers for supporting the MDC. His bent and twisted logic demands scapegoats and revenge. Everything is happening because he is desperate to win next year's presidential elections at any cost.
As the Minister well knows, the issue was discussed at the recent conference in Abuja. An agreement was reached there, but, unfortunately, Mugabe has not honoured his pledge. I would like the Minister to talk about that and about Abuja when he replies to the debate.
The farm invasions represent a breakdown in the rule of law, but we must also consider the wider context. Last year's parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe were

123WH
plagued by intimidation, violence, murder, ballot-rigging and fraud. Even by Africa's pitiful standards, they were far from free and fair. I have seen the July 2001 report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum, as I am sure the Minister has. That non-governmental organisation is supported by several eminent bodies, including Amnesty International of Zimbabwe, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Association and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights.
The report examines in great detail the events running up to the parliamentary elections last year. In the opening paragraph it points out that between February and June 2000 ZANU-PF was engaged in a systematic campaign of intimidation, aimed at crushing support for opposition parties. It has identified 200,000 cases of political violence, 40 murders, and 704 serious assaults, including torture. One example that I found really appalling was that of the infamous late Dr. Chenjarai Hunzvi. It refers to a Patrick Chipunza.
"Chipunza was allegedly dragged off a commuter omnibus and taken to the home of ZANU-PF candidate Hokoyo. He was then taken to Dr. Hunzvi's surgery. He was recaptured after escaping, severely assaulted, tortured, left for dead but police transported him to the local hospital where he later died."
There are other examples of political intimidation and violence, including a petrol bomb in the constituency of Bahera, North, which killed two MDC officials. When that case was considered in court a few weeks later, there was an electoral challenge in that constituency. The High Court Justice James Devittie requested the Attorney-General to arrest the suspected murderers for their role in the petrol bomb attack on the two MDC officials, but he refused to take any action.
It has been obvious for some time that the rule of law has been breaking down and that the independent judiciary has had its independence taken away. I have read the remarks of the former Chief Justice, Anthony Gubbay, who spoke last Monday evening at the John Foster human rights trust lecture. He spoke of his utter frustration as decisions taken by the highest court in the land were ignored by the Government. His court was occupied by so-called veterans. Every time he insisted on police action, all he received was police inaction. He feared for his life. There were threats to his pension and, not surprisingly, he resigned. President Mugabe has replaced him with Godfrey Chidyausiku, who has now appointed two new Mugabe supporters to the Supreme Court. That court has recently overturned an earlier decision on fast-track land seizures.
Any pretence that there was an independent judiciary in Zimbabwe has now been totally undermined. That does not bode well for the presidential elections that must be held by 17 March 2002.
The second report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum has looked carefully at events in Zimbabwe since last year's elections. It is not an encouraging picture if we are hoping to see free and fair elections. In February 2001, Joe Sikhala, MDC MP for Harare, and his pregnant wife were severely assaulted by army personnel who invaded their home. In May, in Harare, ZANU-PF militias attacked and injured Willias Madzimure, another MDC MP. A few days later, his home was ransacked and looted. Also in May, Roy Bennett, one of
124WH
the four white MDC MPs, had his farm raided and his house trashed. His food store, where grain was being stored to dispense to local people, was raided and the food was stolen by Government supporters. There are numerous other examples of torture and attacks on party workers. Is it any wonder when President Mugabe has, in speech after speech, incited that type of hatred and violence?
In July 2001, the Zimbabwe Minister of Foreign Affairs, said at a conference attended by trainee teachers:
"As civil servants, you have to be loyal to the Government. You can be killed for supporting the opposition."
We know that there is no longer a free press in Zimbabwe. BBC reporters have been flung out of the country and eminent journalists and editors have been arrested and imprisoned. It is vital that the elections be free and fair next year. We must insist on certain basic minimums, including an up-to-date electronic electoral roll that can be checked. There must be secure ballot boxes, so I urge that metal ballot boxes, which are much easier to secure, replace the existing wooden ones. An independent electoral commission is needed, and it is essential that foreign observers be put in place in good time. There must be impartial policing and free access to the media.
Given Britain's unique position, it is vital that Her Majesty's Government use all possible pressure and influence to persuade Mugabe that those conditions be put in place. He must be told that if he does not agree to them and to free and fair elections, Zimbabwe will be dismissed from the Commonwealth, and there will be a freeze on foreign assets and restrictions on travel.
We know that Mugabe is a bully and a tyrant. He does not understand the language of compromise. I was disappointed—I hope that the Minister was as well—by the supine communiqué issued by the eight-member Commonwealth delegation that recently went to Harare. It is no wonder that it was so lame, as it was a joint communiqué with the Zimbabwean Government. Why could it not have issued its own communiqué stating clearly what it had seen and the evidence that it had collected?
I have great respect for Baroness Amos, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but she could have been more robust in her remarks. She said that Mugabe was a difficult man and that he must not be pushed into a corner, but he is a bully who understands only tough action and tough language. The time has come to send a special envoy to Zimbabwe to talk to President Mugabe and explain to him clearly that he has a last chance to play fair and to deliver free and fair elections. There are eminently qualified politicians in the United Kingdom whom Mugabe respects, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). His late father, Lord Soames, was the last governor-general of Zimbabwe—Mugabe attended his funeral six years ago—and his mother Mary Soames is a personal friend of Mugabe.
My hon. Friend was an outstandingly able Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the most recent Conservative Government, and is ideally equipped and suited to go to Zimbabwe as a special Government envoy. The Prime Minister believes in special envoys—

125WH
he uses them all the time in the middle east—and there is surely an opportunity to use one in this case to point out to President Mugabe what will happen if he does not allow free and fair elections. The world has moved on, as Pinochet's case showed. Milosevic has been arraigned before the war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Mugabe must be told that, unless he delivers free and fair elections, win or lose, he will be treated as the mass murderer and brutal tyrant that he is and arraigned before a war crimes tribunal at The Hague. His assets will be frozen and restrictions will be placed on his foreign travel. He will never be able to walk in safety again, because the clutches of the world's international legal systems will be after him, but he has a last chance.
We owe it to the people of Zimbabwe to ensure that they have a free and fair election next year. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on proposing the debate. We are all aware of his long-standing personal interest in Zimbabwe, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to update hon. Members on Government policy. His speech was excellent, thoughtful and constructive. He quoted a moving e-mail from one of his constituents, and many of us have had similar worrying e-mails from people in Zimbabwe and their relatives in this country.
All Zimbabwe's friends are deeply saddened by events there. Free speech is imperilled. Democracy is undermined by Government violence. The rule of law is threatened by intimidation and manipulation of the judiciary. There is a growing culture of impunity. Anyone who ever doubted that human rights and fundamental freedoms are essential in a prosperous modern economy need look no further than the crisis that has befallen Zimbabwe in the past few years, where, as the hon. Gentleman said, the economy has continued its dramatic decline. Worse still, Zimbabwe's tragedy threatens to infect all of southern Africa by weakening business and investor confidence in the region.
Britain is, and will remain. committed to helping the people of Zimbabwe. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, we worked with all shades of opinion at Lancaster house in 1979–80 to end white minority rule by negotiation. We have given Zimbabwe substantial support—£500 million since independence. We will not walk away now. We want to continue working in partnership with the Zimbabwean people towards a just society in which all the people enjoy fair access to opportunity.
By contrast, Zimbabwe's Government seek to limit international scrutiny of what is happening there. They blame the west, and the United Kingdom in particular, for their problems. The reality is simpler and more brutal, and the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it: a Government facing difficult re-election. That has led to the undermining of Zimbabwe's democratic system; widespread abuse of human rights; the rapid decline of the economy; and severe damage to commercial agriculture, the country's main foreign currency earner.
126WH
On top of that, recently introduced price controls can only create shortages in a country already facing a serious shortfall in basic staples by the end of the year. Such a fall from grace is unnecessary. It is wasteful and must be halted and reversed.
Five principles underpin our policy on Zimbabwe. The first is Britain's interest in seeing a stable, prosperous and democratic country. The second is that Zimbabweans deserve and should get the help of the international community which is increasingly concerned at events in Zimbabwe. The European Union signalled its concerns on 29 October, when it invited the Government of Zimbabwe to begin formal and time-limited consultations on human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement.
Commonwealth Ministers, in an initiative of President Obasanjo of Nigeria already referred to by the hon. Gentleman, brokered an agreement at Abuja on 6 September. Among other things, the Zimbabwe Government committed themselves to respecting the democratic and human rights principles contained in the Harare Commonwealth declaration and the Mill brook action programme. They committed themselves to no further occupation of farms; the removal of illegal occupiers; the restoration of the rule of law to the process of land reform; respect for freedom of expression; and firm action against violence and intimidation.
As the hon. Gentleman said, two months on there is little evidence that the Zimbabwe Government are honouring any of those commitments. My noble Friend Baroness Amos, who has ministerial responsibilities for Africa, saw that at first hand during her visit to Harare between 25 and 27 October. In their communiqué of 27 October, the Commonwealth Ministers called on the Zimbabwean law enforcement authorities to investigate violations of human rights and press freedoms, and called on the Government to implement land reform in accordance with the law and constitution. We look to the Commonwealth to press the Government of Zimbabwe to take the action they agreed.
The hon. Gentleman expressed his disappointment with, as he described it, the weakness of the communiqué, but it did talk about monitoring. It should be remembered that all the opposition parties and civil society in Zimbabwe value the Abuja process and want it to continue.
Our third principle is that Zimbabwe's future prosperity depends on respect for the rule of law and an end to political violence. We will not be deflected from pressing the Zimbabwe Government on their abuses of fundamental rights, many of which the hon. Gentleman has reminded us of, or from drawing international attention to those abuses. We have already taken a number of measures. We have imposed a complete embargo on arms sales to Zimbabwe and cut non-humanitarian aid. These processes cannot be open-ended, but they must be given a chance. The European Union's article 96 process, for example, sets a strict time limit of 75 days.
We also need effectiveness. Further unilateral UK measures would not be effective and, more importantly, they would play directly into the hands of those, including Mr. Mugabe, who wrongly seek to portray

127WH
Zimbabwe's internal problems as the product of a bilateral dispute with the United Kingdom. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his idea of a special envoy and will consider it. However, we must do what we can to avoid playing into Mugabe's hands, as it helps him for the issue to be seen as an old colonial dispute. A coordinated international approach is the best course. It should be enough, for now, to say that the international community is increasingly alive to alternative measures against the Zimbabwe Government.
A further reason for resisting some of the proposals is the reality of the modern Commonwealth. The suspension of Commonwealth members has up to now been confined to a narrow set of circumstances such as coups. We and others are working to broaden the criteria. Although concern is growing in the Commonwealth at Zimbabwe's disregard for the principles of the Harare declaration, no consensus yet exists on suspending it from the organisation.
We are determined to pursue our fourth principle, that Britain will help a democratic Zimbabwe to achieve prosperity through successful land reform. That is central to fair and equitable economic development in Zimbabwe and the righting of any remaining wrongs of the colonial period and white minority rule. As I have noted, since Lancaster house we have provided over £500 million in bilateral aid to Zimbabwe and have already provided around £40 million for land reform. However, let me emphasise that we shall not write blank cheques. The Abuja agreement made it clear that land reform would need to be based on the United Nations development programme proposals of December 2000.
Our final principle is that the future must he left in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe, which will hold a presidential election in a few months' time. We, the EU, the Commonwealth and others will work to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe are given a genuine opportunity to make their voice heard. They showed courage and dignity in parliamentary elections last year, when they voted in large numbers despite systematic intimidation and violence. They have the right to expect that the scenes that disfigured those elections will not be repeated. If President Mugabe truly believes that he enjoys the backing of his people, he need not fear the outcome of a genuine democratic process and should have no difficulty in inviting international election observers in good time. Sadly, however, the omens are not good. The violence and intimidation continue, and the Zimbabwe Government are obstructing efforts to observe at first hand the conduct of the election campaign.
Let me stress one thing for the record. Our policy is not about Britain versus President Mugabe but about helping Zimbabwe against its real enemies: poverty, disease, hunger, oppression and social injustice. I hope that the present Government of Zimbabwe and their successors will one day get back on the side of their own people and respect the rule of law. If they do so, Britain and Zimbabwe's other friends in the international community stand ready to help.

Digital Hearing Aids (NHS Provision)
1.29 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful to have secured this debate on universal provision of al hearing aid technology throughout the national health service. This is something of a departure for me, as I normally focus on quality-of-life issues such as graffiti and abandoned cars, but given the proven benefits that al technology can bring to many hearing aid users, the need to make that technology available universally amounts to a quality-of-life issue for deaf and hard of hearing people.
My decision to table early-day motion 317 and to apply for this debate was prompted by the many letters and cards that I received—as, I am sure, all other Members of Parliament did—from constituents who are hearing impaired and rightly concerned about the fact that fewer than 5 per cent. of people who need a hearing aid are in a position to take advantage of al hearing aid technology through the NHS.
I recall the words of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), when he was the Minister with responsibility for audiology services. He said that the Government were
"absolutely committed to ensuring that people who need audiology services from the NHS will get a first-class service. Nothing else will do."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 854.]
Those were welcome words indeed. He was responding to a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) the last time the subject of audiology services was debated in the House. The Government's aspiration was a noble one, and it remains equally important that it becomes a reality today, three years later. There are 8.7 million people in the United Kingdom who are deaf or hard of hearing and of those 2 million have a hearing aid. According to the Medical Research Council a further 3 million would benefit from one.
Those statistics are even more striking when one considers that the most common cause of deafness is the wear and tear that come to us all with age, and that three quarters of people with hearing loss are over 60. However, we should not forget that 13 children in every 10,000 are born deaf or become deaf when they are very young. If the mark of a civilised society is how well it treats its very young and very old, providing the best possible audiology service must be a crucial part of that.
I am acutely aware of the huge financial demands on every area of the health service, but I am pleased that. three years after my right hon. Friend made the remarks that I quoted, the Government have made a good start in transforming aspiration into reality in providing al hearing aids. Under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend and, since the general election, my honourable and good friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, thousands of people now use digital hearing aids—the latest and most beneficial technology for those who are deaf or hard of hearing.
In partnership with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, 20 NHS trusts were chosen as first-wave sites at which audiology departments were to be modernised and where cutting-edge al hearing aids

129WH
were to be fitted to patients. Those first-.wave sites had funding of £11 million earmarked for 2000–02 and their success was to be evaluated by Professor Adrian Davis of the Medical Research Council's Institute for Hearing Research. I understand that the results so far have been very positive. More than 10,500 aids had been fitted and almost 13,000 people assessed on the NHS by the end of September 2001, 12 months after the project was set up.
Preliminary evaluation results look good with respect to hearing aid use and benefit, compared with analogue aids. People use al aids more than they used the old type of NHS aids and are finding them much more helpful. Responses from RNID members bear that out. For instance, Sarah Maynard from Hammersmith told the RNID last week that using a al hearing aid
"had brought tears to my eyes",
so great was the improvement to her hearing. Alex Bevis, from Northwich in Cheshire, who has recently started to use a al hearing aid, e-mailed the RNID recently to say:
"It's only now that I realise just how isolated and introspective I had become."
Professor Michael Krom, an environmental scientist at the university of Leeds, wrote to RNID:
"I know from first hand how such hearing aids can transform one's existence from essentially a person with a severe disability to one with a problem but one which can be lived with."
The benefits of al hearing aids cannot be overstated, but the palpable frustration for many people who would dearly love an opportunity to take advantage of the new technology through the NHS is that there are still only 20 sites operating in England. That means that fewer than 5 per cent. of those who will be supplied with an NHS hearing aid this year will have a al one. The down side of the old analogue aids is thrown into even sharper relief with the advent of al aids. As the Audit Commission report, "Fully Equipped", of March 2000 puts it:
"Reports suggest that a third of [analogue] hearing aids are infrequently or never used because of the poor quality of aids and the advice given. This is due to a combination of poor technology, rushed fittings, patchy fitting skills and inadequate guidance and support for hearing aid users. This represents a waste of money, as well as excluding deaf or hard-of-hearing people from society."
The report goes on to say that, conversely, al hearing aids
"deliver superior performance, particularly in eliminating background noise; and can be programmed to meet individuals' specific needs. Clinical trials have found that users with digital aids increase their use of the aid (from an average of 6…to 11 hours per day)".
I speak on behalf of the deaf and hard of hearing people of Mitcham and Morden, and, indeed, their families—including my mum, if that is not an unparliamentary term—when I say that they would welcome a commitment to national roll-out as soon as possible, so that the wonderful progress made in the past 14 months will not be allowed to slip in the light of the other financial imperatives faced by the NHS.
There are four reasons why that commitment should be made. First, the quality of life of 2 million people would be dramatically improved. For a small amount of money per person—the equivalent of less than one night's stay in a hospital or one week's stay in a residential home—the national roll-out of digital
130WH
hearing aids would offer each person huge benefits. It is difficult to exaggerate just how wasteful the current system is. It is not merely that people are given hearing aids that are inadequate for their needs; often, their current NHS hearing aids are simply not being used. That is a serious waste of public money. It is a false economy in the extreme to provide people with cheap analogue hearing aids if only two thirds are used properly and one third—again, my mother fits into this category—are never used at all. Few, if any, other policies would bring such huge gains to so many at such little cost.
Secondly, with improved hearing people would be able to live fuller lives and would be rescued from the isolation, lack of confidence and reduced communication that deafness can bring. In addition, for those of working age the ability to remain in work would be greatly increased. Although roll-out would involve increased expenditure, in the long run it would lead to savings for the health service and for Government Departments, as everyone knows. As the Audit Commission points out, the introduction of al aids, which can be programmed and adjusted according to the changing needs of users, offers potential economies by reducing the cost of replacements. Furthermore, deafness and the isolation that follows can be very expensive in terms of the effect on physical and mental well-being. al hearing aids extend independent living. The more people can look after themselves, the less of a burden they are likely to be on the public purse.
Thirdly, national roll-out would offer an excellent example of the Government's commitment to modernising the NHS. Audiology services have hardly changed in 30 years. Addressing that long-term neglect and modernising the entire service in the next two years would be an achievement of huge worth, and would show that the NHS can be improved.
Finally, as I have said, the vast majority of deaf and hard of hearing people are elderly. The modernisation of audiology services would be another clear sign of the Government's commitment to pensioners. Indeed, as the Audit Commission says:
"Nowhere is the cost versus quality debate in the provision of equipment for older or disabled people better illustrated than by reference to hearing aids."
Digital hearing aids would help many older workers to hold down their jobs, and would tackle age discrimination in the workplace. Given that job retention for men and women in their late 50s and early 60s is an important objective, there is a clear and obvious benefit. Providing al hearing aids is the right thing to do and makes sound economic sense.
The alternative would be to allow the NHS to continue to supply analogue aids. As a result, more and more people would be forced to purchase al aids privately, and even to travel abroad to do so. A privately purchased al hearing aid can cost up to £2,500, but each al aid costs the NHS only £150. Indeed, as the largest purchaser of hearing aids in the world, the NHS occupies a strong position. It can secure value for money by legitimately driving prices down: the more aids purchased, the more prices would be reduced.
The Government have already committed an extra £25 million for national roll-out from 2003–04. That is excellent news, but leaves some questions unanswered.

131WH
First, the Minister will be aware of the worrying anomaly in funding arrangements. As things stand, the £11 million for 2000–02 will run out in five months, but the £25 million will not come on stream until April 2003. There is, therefore, a 12-month gap in the funding of the first-wave sites. Can the Minister clarify and address that situation? At the very least, can she tell us that a further 12 months' funding for the first-wave sites is guaranteed? Given that we are only five months away from the money drying up, an announcement on that would be helpful.
The Government surely do not want to see the 20 first-wave sites taking several steps backwards, and returning to supplying the old analogue aids. Aside from the demoralising effect on staff in audiology departments, the Minister can imagine the sense of powerless desperation that would be felt by patients who have been waiting for such a long time, or by those who have so far been provided with the best possible after care and would not get the same standard after next April.
Secondly, we have had no indication of the detailed timetable for national roll-out. I should be delighted if the Minister could tell us when an announcement was likely. Thirdly, can she confirm that, if national roll-out goes ahead, a full £25 million will be spent and not something up to that amount? Can she also explain how the figure of £25 million was originally estimated and whether she believes that it will cover the cost of the universal roll-out across England?
Will the Minister elaborate on the extent of the private sector's possible involvement in national rollout, a subject she has mentioned in recent replies to constituents and in her speech to the Royal National Institute for Deaf People last month?
Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the private sector, may I draw to her attention the fact that my high street optician offers free hearing tests? There may be scope for the Minister to look into whether high street opticians could provide hearing expertise so that people can kill two birds with one stone—getting their eyes and hearing tested at the same time.
Siobhain McDonagh: As always, my hon. Friend has an eminently modern and fresh way of looking at things.
A recent leaked letter from the head of an audiology department reveals that such departments are under a lot of pressure. The letter urges colleagues who refer people to his service to play down the benefits of al hearing aids, to cope with high demand. No one would deny that the Government have made significant strides in the provision of al hearing aids on the NHS, or that it would be a tragedy for all concerned if that were unable to continue. It is still in the Government's gift to provide a first-class audiology service. For the millions of people whose disability means that they must rely on hearing aids, nothing but a first-class audiology service will do.
13.43 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on raising
132WH
this subject. I know that she takes a keen interest in it, and has ably lobbied on behalf of her constituents and, as she has made clear today, deaf and hard of hearing people across the country. I am pleased that the debate provides me with an opportunity to tell the House about progress in providing al hearing aids on the NHS to people with hearing impairments, and to mention some of the challenges that future developments will pose.
Like my hon. Friend, the Government recognise the importance of providing modern, good-quality and readily accessible services to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Providing al hearing aids is one part of a wide range of cross-Government initiatives to improve the quality of life of such people—for example, through employment projects as part of the new deal for disabled people, increased access to television via the provision of subtitling, sign language and audio description services and the extra £105 million that is being provided to improve NHS community equipment services by 2004. Those are just a few examples of the wide cross-Government agenda for improving services for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
My hon. Friend is keen to pursue the issue of al hearing aids. As she said, leading-edge al hearing aids are now available on the NHS for the first time. Equally importantly, they are being provided as part of a modernised service that puts people with hearing impairment at the centre of the service offered by the NHS. We are providing 21st century technology as part of a 21st century service. Just over a year ago, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), announced the modernising hearing aids services project. Currently, 20 NHS trusts routinely fit al hearing aids as part of a pilot project. By the end of October, 13,270 aids had been fitted and 16,178 people had been assessed. By the end of March, we expect that more than 18,000 will have al aids on the NHS.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out in her criticism of the more traditional approach to hearing aid provision, what is important is not only the hearing aid itself, but the proper fitting and assessment that goes with it. The patient, not the hearing aid, is at the heart of the fitting process. That is why the modernising hearing aids services project focuses on improving the rehabilitation that is provided as well as introducing new technology hearing aids.
The modernised patient journey—I apologise for the jargon—includes the formal assessment of the patient's hearing, hearing needs and lifestyle. At the initial assessment visit, a profile is used to assess their individual hearing needs and to discover the situations in which it is important for them to hear well. Another questionnaire assesses their attitude, motivation and expectations in relation to the aid. At the fitting, the aid is programmed using a portable computer with the patient's details and aid settings stored on it. The outcome is then evaluated both acoustically, using a probe tube measuring the response in the ear, and subjectively.
Fine tuning of the aid's settings may be performed about two weeks after the fitting, and about three months later the audiologist completes the profile by asking the patient, for each of the named situations, how much they use the aid, how much they benefit, how satisfied they are and how much difficulty they still have.

133WH
That allows the audiologist to pick up on any problems and to identify if more help needs to be provided. The process helps to ensure that hearing aids benefit patients and are used to improve their lives, and that we get the very best out of the technology that we provide.
To support the modernisation project, my Department has provided an additional £11 million, put in place value-for-money purchasing contracts for al hearing aids, introduced new patient pathways designed around patients' needs and provided the necessary computer equipment. We have negotiated keen purchasing contracts for the supply of al hearing aids. NHS organisations can purchase them for about £150, which represents a substantial reduction on the commercially available price. I want to make it clear that all NHS trusts, not only the pilot sites, can take advantage of those contracts, provided that staff have the training and experience needed to fit them safely and effectively. Given what I have just said, the important point is that we ensure that people benefit from access to al hearing aids within the context of the whole process.
Tim Loughton: If it is true that al hearing aids are readily available, why are so many people travelling to Denmark to acquire them at half the British price?
Jacqui Smith: As I have pointed out, we want to provide the best process on the NHS, as well as the best product, to ensure that those hearing aids are used effectively, and that people get the high-quality staff that they expect and deserve.
The aim of the modernisation project, which, as my hon. Friend said, is being taken forward in partnership with the RNID, is to test the benefits of providing al hearing aids on the NHS as part of a modernised service. I should like to join my hon. Friend in commending the excellent work that the RNID is doing managing the project and applying its experience and expertise. Having heard news of progress, I am aware that hon. Members will want to know—indeed, some have already asked me—when al hearing aids will be more widely available. I appreciate that people want al aids to be available everywhere so that everyone with hearing impairment can benefit. However, for the reasons I have outlined, we must ensure that we make the right hearing aids available. We must have the infrastructure in place to deliver not only hearing aids, but structures that will ensure that those who receive them can obtain the maximum benefit. That is why, as my hon. Friend outlined, we are evaluating the project.
In July 2000, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance on hearing aid technology. It said that insufficient evidence was available to properly judge the benefits of al hearing aids. NICE will be revisiting its guidance in the light of the evaluation of the modernisation project, which is being conducted by the Institute of Hearing Research. We need information about the most effective aids for NHS patients, the best ways to supply hearing aids and how a modern hearing aid service can be delivered to NHS patients. Those are all important points that will inform decisions about the benefits of making these changes more widely available and how best to introduce them. It is important that we get this right.
134WH
As my hon. Friend pointed out, researchers tell us that, based on small samples, people with al hearing aids report improvements in hearing, and that they are wearing their aids more often, which means that fewer hearing aids are ending up languishing in kitchen drawers. That is encouraging, but the research is based on limited data. Subject to favourable evaluation, we shall make decisions about how best to spread the modernised service throughout the NHS. We have earmarked funds to begin that roll out, and we have said that up to £25 million will be invested by 2003–04, which answers the question raised by my hon. Friend about whether there is a gap in funding. We are considering the detail of spending allocations over the next year and beyond in light of the many competing and important priorities in the NHS, and the evaluation of the project. That will ensure that as we make the service more widely available, we do it in the most effective way for NHS patients.
We are not only putting more money into audiology, we are supporting NHS capacity to deliver change on the ground by boosting the number of skilled audiology staff that we need. We are working in innovative ways to keep waiting lists down. We are working with members of the profession to develop new streamlined degree courses in audiology. We expect, together with modernisation, that that will make audiology a more attractive career option. We are ensuring that existing audiology training courses are maintained, and looking at ways in which additional trainees can come on stream more quickly. The NHS plan sets out an agenda to increase the number of NHS staff in many specialties and professional groups. In the shorter term, we are working creatively on a range of measures to boost capacity, including the action on ENT programme, which is a project to spread good practice, reduce waiting lists and support better and smarter ways of working. We have invested £75 million in the project in 2001–02.
We must also examine, as does the project, the innovative use of skill mixing in audiology departments to make the best use of skills and expertise. I was pleased and interested to hear the comment about the high street from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I cannot comment on the ability of opticians to provide hearing tests, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are testing the pros and cons of involving high street hearing aid dispensers in the provision of NHS services.
Caroline Flint: I was not suggesting that an optician would be qualified to test someone's hearing. I was talking about modern access to services. There are common areas in improving people's sight and hearing and the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the RNID might consider how to bring audiology expertise to high street shops so as to provide people with a service for both sight and hearing.
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the modernisation of the whole process and the need to consider new ways of delivery so that benefits are spread as broadly as possible. We are considering ways of involving high street hearing aid dispensers in providing NHS services.

135WH
In my recent speech to the RNID national conference, I announced that we would test ways of involving the private sector in support of NHS audiology departments and boosting NHS capacity to deliver benefits as quickly as possible to as many people as possible.
John Mann: In her research, will my hon. Friend consider the fact that analogue hearing aids are a problem in many Government buildings that were erected during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. They are the worst buildings for those with hearing aids because the majority are of metallic construction, which causes a resonance of background noise. Perhaps the research that my hon. Friend is commissioning could pay particular attention to the problems of hearing aid users if the Government do not proceed rapidly on the use of al hearing aids.
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I promise to draw it to the attention of the researchers. However, I cannot promise that we shall be able to examine Government buildings in depth.
Tim Loughton: Before we get back to blaming Labour Governments for the buildings of the 1960s and 1970s, will the Minister return to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden? If the pilot schemes in the 20 areas, including Redditch, the Minister's constituency, are as successful as they appear to be from anecdotal evidence, will she proceed, without delay, to recommend a full roll-out for the 95 per cent. of the population to whom this important technological aid is not available?
Jacqui Smith: I have made it clear that the issue involves not just money, but capacity in the NHS and ensuring that we provide the necessary processes. It was this Government who introduced the process for modernisation. We have been responsible for the progress that has been made so far and we are committed to ensuring that, subject to the evaluation, we make available the best possible services to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
To return to the private sector pilot, I want to make it clear that we are not talking about privatising the NHS hearing aid service. People with hearing difficulties will continue to be able to obtain hearing aids free on the NHS and we are not devaluing the role of NHS audiologists. They are the key to the delivery of modernised services and that is why we are committed to boosting their number and capacity to provide special skills and expertise. To succeed, we must be willing to explore a range of ways in which we can provide people with hearing difficulties with high-tech hearing aids as part of a modernised service. We are fully committed to achieving that aim.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to give the House a clear demonstration of how the NHS is being modernised. It provides leading-edge al technology, supported by modernised patient pathways resulting in big improvements for people with hearing difficulties. That is part of what we are pledged to deliver and, subject to the evaluation. we are pledged to continue doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Consulate (Punjab)
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to establish the British Consulate Office in Jallander, Punjab. [12540]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 31 October 2001,Official Report column 667W.

  Visas
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for a visa to visit family members in the UK were refused in each month since 1 October 2000. [13056]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Statistical information on the number of family visit applications refused on a monthly basis is only available from those posts that provide monthly statistical information (107 largest posts in 2000 and 110 in 2001). These figures are as follows:

  Month

  Received

  Refused

  2000

  October

  11,850

  2,022

  November

  14,334

  1,897

  December

  12,470

  1,283

  2001

  January

  13,612

  2,276

  February

  16,182

  1,775

  March

  20,811

  4,205

  April

  22,486

  3,978

  May

  32,143

  5,177

  June

  32,168

  5,610

  July

  36,866

  5,870

  August

  28,820

  5,129

  September

  15,737

  3,225

  Total

  257,479

  42,447

  The remaining posts submit information on an annual basis, which is not broken down into months. To answer this question for all 165 posts we would have to ask those additional posts manually to extract the information requested. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  New Partnership for African Development
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial commitments the Government have made to the New African Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [13120]
  238W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD—formerly known as the New African Initiative) will require a broad international response, ranging from support to some of NEPAD's programmatic elements to action in the EU, OECD, UN and other international forums. No specific financial commitments have yet been made.

  The Prime Minister has appointed Baroness Amos as his Personal Representative in developing a G8 Action Plan for Africa to be adopted at the 2002 G8 Summit in Canada. The first meeting of G8 Heads of State Personal Representatives was held in London on 17–19 October. They agreed to consult widely with other development partners, with the private sector, civil society and international organisations. They have further meetings planned which will include dialogue with African partners. The elements in the Action Plan will be evolved in the context of these meetings.

  Afghan Women (Suicides)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has(a) received and (b) made concerning the number of suicides among Afghan women. [13121]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Although we have received no specific representations on this issue, we have, through our High Commission in Islamabad, made numerous and regular representations to the Taliban on women's rights in Afghanistan.

  International Criminal Court
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made to publicise the United Kingdom's policies on international humanitarian law, with particular reference to the International Criminal Court. [13195]

  Peter Hain
  On 4 October the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued a publication entitled "United Kingdom and International Humanitarian Law", whose appearance was timed to coincide with United Kingdom ratification of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. The publication, which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, describes the United Kingdom's policy regarding the International Criminal Court itself, in addition to a number of other important areas of international humanitarian law.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Funding
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the proportion of total education spending on primary and secondary education delivered through(a) Education Standard Spending assessment allocations and (b) other central Government funding streams for each of the last five years. [10820]

  Mr. Timms
  The table provides the information requested. It compares funding through the primary, secondary and post-16 sub-blocks of Education Standard Spending with DfES grant funding through the Standards
  239W
  Fund (DfES revenue grant only), School Standards Grant, Teachers' Pay Grants, Education Action Zone programme, School Budget Support Grant and Education Budget Support Grant.

  Percentage

  Year

  Primary, secondary, and post-16 ESS sub-blocks

  DFES grant funding

  1997–98

  99

  1

  1998–99

  98

  2

  1999–2000

  96

  4

  2000–01

  91

  9

  2001–02

  88

  12

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 26 October 2001,Official Report column 456W, on education spending, what proportion of total spending on education was devolved to schools and colleges in each of the past 10 years. [12163]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available on a comparable basis across this period.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost of performance-related pay is to date, divided between(a) payments to staff and (b) administration costs; how many teachers have received performance-related pay; how many teachers who applied for performance-related pay failed to meet the necessary criteria; and if she will make a statement. [11486]

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in grammar schools and other maintained secondary school by government office region—January 2001

  Grammar schools

  Other maintained secondary schools

  Number of schools

  Day pupils

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number of schools

  Day pupils

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  England

  159

  141,478

  3,393

  2.4

  3,322

  3,085,495

  506,283

  16.4

  North East

  Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  7

  6,009

  949

  15.8

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  36

  32,158

  5,762

  17.9

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  12,043

  2,606

  21.6

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  6

  6,679

  1,726

  25.8

  Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  11

  8,572

  3,070

  35.8

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  21

  18,071

  4,573

  25.3

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  20

  14,174

  2,498

  17.6

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  60

  30,478

  3,693

  12.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  10,352

  2,361

  22.8

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  11

  10,508

  2,535

  24.1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  12,793

  2,557

  20.0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  17

  10,837

  5,956

  30.0

  North West

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  9

  9,501

  2,469

  26.0

  Blackpool

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  8

  7,824

  1,721

  22.0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  16

  19,145

  2,973

  15.5

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  11,731

  1.754

  15.0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  45

  46,239

  4,605

  11.0

  Cumbria

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  9

  8,688

  2.083

  24.0

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  11

  10,240

  4.612

  45.0

  Lancashire

  4

  3,995

  117

  2.9

  85

  70,819

  11,065

  15.6

  Liverpool

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  23

  23.477

  10,286

  43.8

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  15

  16,825

  3,693

  21.9

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  14,154

  3,565

  25.2

  240W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Over 200,000 teachers in England applied to cross the performance threshold in the first round, some 80 per cent. of those who were eligible to apply. Of these, nearly 195,000 were assessed as meeting the threshold standards and are now receiving over £400 million per year in associated pay increases.

  The Department has contracts with Cambridge Education Associates (CEA) for the provision of threshold assessors and external advisers to governing bodies on heads' performance and with the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) for training in threshold assessment and performance management. For the first round CEA contract costs have been around £22 to £24 million and CfBT contract costs about £12 to £14 million.

  Free School Meals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in each local authority which retains grammar schools, what proportion of children received free school meals(a) in that local authority as a whole, (b) in each grammar school within the authority and (c) in other secondary schools within the authority, at the latest date for which figures are available. [11627]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Information showing free school meals figures for grammar schools and other secondary schools for each local education authority is contained in the following tables.

  It is not departmental policy not to release individual school data unless the school has had the opportunity to check it. Schools have not had the opportunity to check their free school meals data.
  241W

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in grammar schools and other maintained secondary school by government office region—January 2001

  Grammar schools

  Other maintained secondary schools

  Number of schools

  Day pupils

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number of schools

  Day pupils

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  16

  12,524

  3,209

  25.6

  Sefton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  22

  20,676

  4,093

  19.8

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  12

  12,159

  2,331

  19.2

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  16,575

  2,325

  14.0

  Tameside

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  18

  15,368

  3,096

  20.1

  Trafford

  7

  6,731

  266

  4.0

  11

  9,116

  2,175

  23.9

  Warrington

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  12

  13,833

  1,400

  10.1

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  21

  20,855

  3,056

  14.7

  Wirral

  4

  4,350

  237

  5.4

  19

  19,831

  6,219

  31.4

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  13,134

  3,240

  24.7

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  27

  34,214

  9,160

  26.8

  Calderdale

  2

  1,988

  43

  2.2

  13

  12,896

  2,430

  18.8

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  17

  21,378

  3,829

  17.9

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  18

  22,627

  1,943

  8.5

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  16

  16,012

  4,324

  27.0

  Kirklees

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  43

  47,168

  8,482

  18.0

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  12

  11,735

  2,421

  20.6

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  10,649

  1,435

  13.5

  North Yorkshire

  3

  1,954

  25

  1.3

  44

  38,262

  2,554

  6.7

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  17

  19,845

  3,145

  15.8

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  27

  29,861

  5,974

  20.0

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  18

  21,279

  3,619

  17.0

  York

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  11

  9,974

  887

  8.9

  East Midlands

  Derby

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  14,748

  2,976

  20.2

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  47

  47,828

  5,109

  10.7

  Leicester

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  16

  18,034

  4,027

  22.3

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0.0

  54

  44,659

  3,081

  6.9

  Lincolnshire

  15

  11,987

  213

  1.8

  48

  32,006

  3,482

  10.9

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  60

  49,192

  5,285

  10.7

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  20

  13,910

  5,168

  37.2

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  58

  54,980

  6,978

  12.7

  Rutland

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  3

  2,255

  113

  5.0

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  8

  6,694

  333

  5.0

  69

  62,345

  22,554

  36.2

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  19

  20,963

  4,223

  20.1

  Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  22

  19,938

  2,995

  15.0

  Herefordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  9,824

  779

  7.9

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  20

  19,532

  4,740

  24.3

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  22

  17,606

  1,422

  8.1

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  15,586

  1,875

  12.0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  69

  60,934

  5,625

  9.2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Telford and Wrekin

  2

  898

  10

  1.1

  11

  9,280

  2,023

  21.8

  Walsall

  2

  1,369

  32

  2.3

  18

  20,015

  3,641

  18.2

  Warwickshire

  5

  3,180

  31

  1.0

  32

  29,478

  2,462

  8.4

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  18

  16,541

  3,710

  22.4

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  61

  40,308

  4,140

  10.3

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  57

  36,987

  3,735

  10.1

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  31

  31,023

  2,425

  7.8

  Essex

  4

  3,014

  23

  0.8

  75

  83,237

  8,578

  10.3

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  86

  75,824

  5,605

  7.4

  Luton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  12

  12,077

  3,251

  26.9

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  52

  44,383

  4,759

  10.7

  Peterborough

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  12,961

  2,271

  17.5

  Southend-on-Sea

  4

  3,726

  88

  2.4

  8

  7,641

  1,401

  18.3

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  78

  53,033

  5,566

  10.5

  Thurrock

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  8,126

  1,243

  15.3

  Inner London

  Camden

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  10,870

  3,137

  28.9

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  Hackney

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  9

  7,921

  3,514

  44.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  8

  7,181

  2,374

  33.1

  Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  11

  11,391

  4,584

  40.2

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  9

  7,583

  3,461

  45.6

  242W 243W

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in grammar schools and other maintained secondary school by government office region—January 2001

  Grammar schools

  Other maintained secondary schools

  Number of schools

  Day pupils

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number of schools

  Day pupils

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  4

  3,665

  1,164

  31.8

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  7,213

  3,011

  41.7

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  11,661

  4,621

  39.6

  Newham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  15

  17,469

  7,839

  44.9

  Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  10,221

  5,401

  52.8

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  15

  14,087

  9,173

  65.1

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  9

  9,948

  2,670

  26.8

  Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  8

  8,021

  2,635

  32.9

  Outer Lyndon

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  8

  11,079

  2,879

  26.0

  Barnet

  3

  2,531

  26

  1.0

  18

  18,542

  3,279

  17.7

  Bexley

  4

  4,382

  151

  3.4

  12

  13,080

  2,065

  15.8

  Brent

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  14,480

  3,554

  24.5

  Bromley

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  21

  17,396

  3,375

  19.4

  Ealing

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  11,940

  4,355

  31.2

  Enfield

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  13,834

  4,646

  33.6

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  8,874

  1,556

  17.5

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  18

  15,904

  1,766

  11.1

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  17

  16,472

  2,440

  14.8

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  16,292

  3,213

  19.7

  Kingston upon Thames

  2

  1,891

  15

  0.8

  8

  6,748

  775

  11.5

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  11

  7,754

  1,262

  16.3

  Redbridge

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  8

  7,531

  1,180

  15.7

  Sutton

  5

  4,629

  51

  1.1

  9

  9,951

  1,081

  10.9

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  16

  12,980

  3,887

  29.9

  South East

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  6

  6,022

  289

  4.8

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  12,026

  2,112

  17.6

  Buckinghamshire

  13

  14,513

  179

  1.2

  21

  18,703

  2,035

  10.9

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  26

  27,807

  3,635

  13.1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  71

  70,564

  4,628

  6.6

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  21

  11,920

  1,989

  16.7

  Kent

  33

  29,140

  634

  2.2

  72

  63,852

  8,475

  13.3

  Medway

  6

  5,988

  186

  3.1

  14

  13,849

  1,764

  12.7

  Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  11

  12,058

  1,438

  11.9

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  45

  38,271

  3,641

  9.5

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  10,108

  1,629

  16.1

  Reading

  2

  1,447

  7

  0.5

  6

  4,833

  816

  16.9

  Slough

  4

  3,585

  177

  4.9

  7

  4,340

  1,053

  24.3

  Southampton

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  12,235

  2,110

  17.2

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  53

  56,224

  3,449

  6.1

  West Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  11,747

  556

  4.7

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  39

  42,818

  2,962

  6.9

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  10,207

  573

  5.6

  Wokingham

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  9

  10,758

  509

  4.7

  South East

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  13

  12,273

  969

  7.9

  Bournemouth

  2

  2,077

  35

  1.7

  8

  7,693

  1,008

  13.1

  Bristol, City of

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  20

  17,907

  3,669

  20.5

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  31

  32,001

  3,905

  12.2

  Devon

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  37

  29,245

  1,807

  6.2

  Gloucestershire

  7

  5,407

  100

  1.8

  35

  32,758

  2,575

  7.9

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  1

  95

  6

  6.3

  North Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  12,269

  958

  7.8

  Plymouth

  3

  2,645

  82

  3.1

  15

  16,184

  2,547

  15.7

  Poole

  2

  1,879

  32

  1.7

  7

  6,318

  560

  8.9

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  39

  30,787

  2,773

  9.0

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  14

  16,442

  1,238

  7.5

  Swindon

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  10

  11,561

  1,084

  9.4

  Torbay

  3

  2,697

  101

  3.7

  5

  6,011

  1,109

  18.4

  Wiltshire

  2

  1,668

  8

  0.5

  32

  26,363

  1,820

  6.9

  1 These local education authorities only have one specialist secondary 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.

  244W

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many employees of(a) her Department and (b) agencies sponsored by her Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with Objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [12244]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The number of permanent employees in the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) who work in:

  (a) London is 2,037;

  (b) areas benefiting from EU Objective I status is 1,134;

  (c) areas with Objective 2 status is 129;

  (d) other areas is 972.

  711 permanent staff also employed by DfES work throughout the Government office network. A breakdown into the above categories could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  DfEs has no agencies.

  High Quality Teaching
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how she will monitor expenditure on rewarding high quality teaching over the next three years; and if she will publish the results. [12310]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently providing funding to support teachers' performance pay through special grants paid to local authorities. A requirement of special grants is that they are fully and properly audited. Auditors appointed by the local authority make certain that the funds are spent for the purposes for which they are paid. Local authorities are required to provide me with copies of these audits. The new special grant, providing £250 million to support performance pay across the period April 2002 to 2004, will be subject to these same audit requirements.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in the(a) Department for Education and Employment and (b) Department for Education and Skills since 1 May 1997. [12333]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The overseas visits undertaken by Ministers since 1 May 1997 are as follows:

  Department for Education and Employment—Secretary of State: 18:

  Ministers of State for Employment: 48;

  Ministers of State for school standards: 5;

  Minister of State for education and employment in the Lords: 41;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for school standards:4;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for employment and equal opportunities: 11;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for lifelong learning: 17;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for learning and technology: 4.

  Department for Education and Skills—Minister of State for lifelong learning and higher education: 1;

  Minister for school standards: 1.

  246W
  All travel complied with the requirements of the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers".

  Qualified Teacher Status
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what minimum level of qualifications is required for teachers without qualified teacher status in maintained schools. [12365]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Decisions on the suitability of the qualifications held by applicants for employment as teachers in maintained schools are matters for the professional judgments of head teachers taking into account the legal requirements of the Education (Teachers' Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999 as amended.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have(a) opened and (b) closed sixth forms since 1997. [12403]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Since 1997 proposals have been approved to open 27 school sixth forms and close 13 school sixth forms.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many sixth forms have closed since 1997. [12973]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Thirteen proposals for the closure of school sixth forms have been approved since 1997.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people, with respect to Annexe A of her Department's press release "Recruitment to Teacher Training Hits Seven Year High" of 1 November, are already registered; and what estimate she has made of how many will be registered in the rest of the year. [13106]

  Mr. Timms
  The figures published on 1 November comprised the results of the Teacher Training Agency's annual survey of training providers. As in previous years, these included both the numbers of trainees recruited to courses up to and including 11 October 2001, and providers' estimates of the numbers expected to start training later in the 2001–02 academic year. The Agency's survey showed 28,966 recruits to training, including 1,719 people expected to begin their courses in the spring and summer 2002 terms.

  The estimate of recruitment for 2000–01 that my right hon. Friend published on 20 November 2000 was 0.25 per cent. lower than final recruitment for that year.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft her Department recorded in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; and on how many occasions in those years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (A) within and (B) outside her Department. [13143]
  247W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There have been no detected cases of computer hacking, either by insiders or by persons outside of the Department in either 2000 or 2001. There were four cases of insider fraud in each of the years in question. There were three cases of theft of IT equipment by insiders from Departmental offices in 2000 and one case in 2001.

  School Governors (Reports)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will reduce the level of detail required in the annual reports produced by school governors. [13252]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Yes, we shall. Earlier this year we consulted on reducing the requirements within both governor's annual reports and school prospectuses, and on the possibility of schools combining these two documents. Following that consultation, we are proceeding with streamlining the requirements and making it easier for schools that choose to do so to combine the two documents. We aim to amend the relevant regulations and send revised guidance to schools early in the new year.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by her Department; if she will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans she has to sell further such assets over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review; and if she will make a statement. [10847]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The stocks of antiques, paintings and fine wines held by the Department are as follows: There have been no assets sold over the last three years and there are no plans to sell further such assets over the period of the current Spending Review.

  Site: Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith street, London.

  Assets: Suite of Cuban mahogany furniture, inlaid with holly, currently on loan to "The Lake District Art Gallery and Museum Trust" to provide conference room and office furnishings for Blackwell

  Value: Insurance value of £5,000

  Site: Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith street, London.

  Assets: Six antique clocks, currently in secure storage.

  Value: £500 each

  Site: Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith street, London.

  Assets: 40 paintings and prints, currently on display throughout the building.

  Value: Total value of £7,000

  Site: Caxton House, Tothill street, London.

  Assets: 118 paintings (mainly student works), currently on display throughout the building.

  Value: Total value of £19,451.

  Individual Learning Accounts (Bromley)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in the borough of Bromley had individual learning accounts; how many account 248W
  holders were the victims of fraud; and what plans there are to allow Beckenham account holders to complete the training plans they had begun. [12697]

  John Healey
  On the basis of the recorded postcode information available, by 31 October 2001, 12,015 people in the borough of Bromley had opened an individual learning account through the national framework launched on 4 September 2000.

  The police have made 30 arrests in England involving four individual learning account (ILA) providers registered at the ILA centre. No allegations of fraud have yet been brought to court.

  The individual learning account centre will continue to accept and process bookings for learning up until 7 December 2001, for all present members. The learning start date to which the bookings relate must be within six months of the date of booking. Learners do not have a deadline in which to complete an episode of learning.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium has been used by(a) US and (b) British forces in Afghanistan. [12694]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 5 November 2001,Official Report, columns 27–28W, to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart).

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the pension paid is to(a) a retired Gurkha and (b) a similar ranking British ex-service man, in money terms and as a percentage; [13013]

  (2) if he will make a statement on how pensions are paid to retired Gurkhas. [13012]

  Dr. Moonie
  Because of their different engagements and career structures, comparing Gurkha and British solider pensions in this way is particularly difficult. 87 per cent. of Gurkhas are discharged in Nepal after 15 years' service and receive an immediate pension. British soldiers discharged at this time would receive no pension until they reached the age of 60.

  The only British and Gurkha rank likely to be discharged at the same point of service is a Warrant Officer Class 1 after 22 years. In this instance, a Gurkha receives an immediate annual pension of £1,672, or 16 per cent. of the £10,283 paid to comparable British ex-servicemen. The difference reflects the Tripartite Agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Nepal and India, and the cost of living in Nepal, where all Gurkhas are discharged. In the Nepalese economy, Gurkha pensions now compare favourably with professional salaries.

  The way in which Gurkha ex-service men receive their pensions depends upon the region in which they live. Those based to the main population centres in Nepal are able to receive their pension either directly into bank accounts or from one of the three Pension Paying Offices

  249W
  in Kathmandu, Pokhara and Itahari. These are manned on a full-time basis and the majority of ex-Gurkhas opt to receive their pension this way.

  Nepal has poor communications, however, and we recognise that the arrangements above do not cater for residents of the more rural and remote areas. For this reason, Gurkha pensions are also paid quarterly, in cash, via Area Welfare Centres. There are 24 of these located throughout Nepal, but concentrated near the main ex-Gurkha populations centres where there are often no banking facilities. Nepal's topography, inclement weather and poor infrastructure, means that it is inevitable that some pensioners will still have to undertake long journeys in order to collect their pension. These difficulties are minimised as far as possible and, where necessary, special arrangements are put in place to enable pensions to be collected on behalf of the sick or infirm.

  A400M Project
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the withdrawal by Italy from the A400M project will mean a change in contribution from the UK; and if he will make a statement. [12913]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 November 2001, Official Report, column 130W. If Italy stands by the decision it took last month not to continue with the A400M programme at present, the total number of aircraft in the initial order will fall from 212 to 196.

  The final price of the A400M aircraft has yet to be agreed with the contractor. While it is reasonable to assume that such a reduction in overall aircraft numbers will increase our contribution to programme costs, reductions achieved in other aspects of the price negotiation may counterbalance that increase. Accordingly, we do not expect to identify a discrete cost increase associated with Italian withdrawal, should that be confirmed in due course.

  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much extra funding is needed for the next phase of the UK's Future Aircraft Carrier programme; and if he will make a statement. [11783]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are currently discussing the CVF procurement strategy with both candidate prime contractors, BAE Systems and Thales Naval Ltd. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement about the way forward in the next few weeks. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment on funding for the programme at this time.

  Army Pensions
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the compensation he proposes to pay to(a) Army pensioners, (b) Army widows and (c) estates which have wrongly had income tax deducted by his Department from their invalidity pensions. [13141]

  Dr. Moonie
  Individuals wrongly taxed receive a refund of tax and an extra amount as compensation for the delay. The Inland Revenue calls this additional payment a repayment supplement. The Income Corporation Taxes 250W
  Act 1988 (Section 824) governs the way the Inland Revenue calculates the repayment supplement. The precise formula is set out in Statutory Instrument No 1297 of 1989.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he will take to identify(a) Army pensioners, (b) Army widows and (c) estates which have wrongly had income tax deducted by his Department from their invalidity pensions. [13140]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following the discovery of a taxation error affecting Army invaliding pensions in 1998, we have manually trawled through individuals' pension files, including widows and dependants, and publicised the matter through the ex-service organisations and the War Widows Association. This publicity has included articles in their journals and circulars. All those identified as being incorrectly taxed, except a small number currently under investigation, have received a full refund with compensation. The Ministry of Defence has no plans to undertake further action on this matter.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he uses to determine whether Territorial Army personnel are fit for role. [13142]

  Dr. Moonie
  Individual members of the Territorial Army (TA) are considered fit for role when they have completed two phases of training. Phase 1 is recruit training, which is either delivered in a two-week package or over a series of weekends. Phase 2 is to prepare them to a standard at which they can train with their unit, and this phase will vary in length depending on an individual's role and trade.

TREASURY

  VAT (Home Repairs)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library documents relating to studies concerning the lowering of VAT for home repairs and renovations undertaken by his Department in the last five years. [13058]

  Mr. Boateng
  It would be inappropriate to publish research relating to internal policy analysis, in accordance with exemption 2 of the code of practice on access to government information.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of offences concerning excise duties in the single market how many people were sentenced; what were the total of sentences passed, broken down by months; what the total sum of(a) court fines and costs and (b) compound settlements was; how many vehicles were seized; and how much was paid for restoration in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to date. [11172]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: For vehicle seizures in 1999–2000, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Paymaster General gave on 15 January 2001, Official Report column 125W, and for 2000–01 and 2001–02, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave

  251W
  him on 30 October 2001, Official Report column 624W. Information for 1999–2000, in relation to excise duties or the single market, on how many people were sentenced, what the total of sentences passed was, broken down by months, what the total sum of fines, costs and compound penalties were is contained in the Customs and Excise annual report for 1999–2000, presented to Parliament in March 2000. The same information for 2000–01 will be published in the Customs and Excise annual report for 2000–01, which will be published shortly. The figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of strategic exports to(a) strategic and (b) other destinations were detected by HM Customs and Excise in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to date. [11163]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The number of detections of strategic and proliferation goods to sensitive and other destinations during the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were as follows:

  Number

  To sensitive destinations

  1999–2000

  238

  2000–01

  188

  To other destinations

  1999–2000

  245

  2000–01

  232

  The figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were searched by HM Customs and Excise officers under section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date. [11176]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not yet available. In 1999–2000, HM Customs and Excise conducted 19,246 searches under section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of exports involving breaches of UN sanctions were detected by Customs and Excise in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date. [11164]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The number of exports in breach of UN sanctions detected by HM Customs and Excise during the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were 27 and 38 respectively. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of revenue evasion(a) generally, (b) of customs duties and (c) of common agricultural policy export refunds, that were prevented by HM Customs and Excise in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [11124]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total VAT and excise revenue evasion prevented by Customs and Excise in 1999–2000 was published in the Customs and Excise annual report.252W
  For the year 2000–01, the figure will be published in the Customs and Excise annual report that will be published in due course.

  HM Customs and Excise does not calculate the revenue evasion prevented for customs duties and common agricultural policy export refunds.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) people were sentenced and (b) prison sentences were passed, broken down by month and what was the total of (i) court fines and costs and (ii) company settlements in respect of Customs and Excise non-fiscal prohibitions and restrictions in (1) 1999–2000, (2) 2000–01 and (3) 2001–02. [11131]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Terrorism (Departmental Spending)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what(a) proportion and (b) amount of all spending by Departments on the action against terrorism he forecasts will be met in the current financial year from funds in the reserves; [10258]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the costs which he forecasts will arise over the current financial year as a direct result of the war on terrorism for each Department directly affected. [10294]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: It would be inappropriate to forecast the costs of operations and other related activities at this stage.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the loss to UK pension funds of the suspension of shares in Railtrack. [8394]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The value of Railtrack shares at the time of administration was around £1.5 billion, and no institutional investor held more than 5 per cent. of the shares at the time of administration.

  The Government are actively working with the board of Railtrack Group to assist shareholders in achieving fair value for assets they hold.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was told that a decision had been taken that Railtrack was to go into administration. [8395]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor was informed of the decision that Railtrack would go into administration on Friday evening, 5 October.

  Terrorist Finance Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional expenditure he plans to make to support the work of the new asset tracking unit; how many staff it will have; and when it will be operational. [11268]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The costs of the terrorist finance unit will be met from within existing spending plans. It will initially have eight staff and is expected to become fully operational by 30 November 2001.

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) persons registered for VAT, (b) repayment traders, (c) new VAT registrations and (d) VAT deregistrations there were and what the net increase or decrease in the register was in the financial years 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to the most recent date for which information is available. [11376]

  Mr. Boateng
  The data for the information requested for the year 1999–2000 can be found in Customs and Excise annual report. Figures for 2000–01 will be published in Customs and Excise annual report in November 2001.

  The latest information was placed in the House of Commons Library in September 2001 in the form of a VAT fact sheet, which is produced every four months.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportions of average household expenditure were(a) taxable at the standard rate of VAT, (b) taxable at the reduced rate of VAT, (c) taxable at the zero rate of VAT and (d) exempt from VAT in (i) 1998, 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) at the most recent date for which information is available. [11371]

  Mr. Boateng
  The figures for 1998–99 are published in table C7 of the tables and statistics accompanying the Customs and Excise annual report. Figures for 1999–2000 are available on the Customs and Excise website www.hmce.gov.uk/general/about/index.htm.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of each of the structural reliefs for VAT in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and what his estimate is of the cost of each such relief in the current financial year. [11377]

  Mr. Boateng
  Estimates for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were published in table A3.1 of the Budget Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Estimates for 2001–02 will be published in the annual tax ready reckoner at the time of the pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total yield of(a) value added tax and (b) excise duty in each of the last four years. [11854]

  Mr. Boateng
  Receipts of value added tax and excise duty for the financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 are published in table Al of the tables and statistics accompanying the Customs and Excise annual report for 2000.

  Details for the year 2000–01 can be found in the national statistics publication "Financial Statistics", table 2.1D.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) of 30 October 2001,Official Report column 625W, on the working families tax credit, (1) how many applications have been selected for further inquiry; [12329]

  (2) how many applications have been selected for further inquiry. [12668]
  254W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Since 1 April 2001, 18 WFTC applications have been referred for a full inquiry. Four inquiries resulted in child care being overpaid and the recovery of £4,201.88 of overpaid tax credits.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice was given to the Financial Services Authority about the Equitable Life Assurance Society; and when the FSA was given responsibility for the regulation of Equitable Life under the service level agreement dated 18 December 1998. [12822]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the section of chapter 4 of the report of the Financial Services Authority headed "The Inheritance Period". Responsibility for the prudential regulation of the life insurance industry, including Equitable Life, passed to the FSA on I January 1999.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he approved the terms and references of the FSA review of the regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society. [12821]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA review and its terms of reference were established by the board of the FSA. The terms of reference were published on 22 December 2000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Personal Investment Authority ombudsman to resume investigation of complaints from policyholders of the Equitable Life Assurance Society; and if he will make a statement. [12846]

  Ruth Kelly
  The service provided by the PIA ombudsman is impartial and independent and the Treasury does not have the power to instruct the PIA ombudsman.

  Under the current regime for regulation of investment business, established under the Financial Services Act 1986, the PIA ombudsman provides a complaints resolution service for customers of firms authorised by the PIA, including the Equitable Life Assurance Society. From 1 December 2001, the PIA ombudsman will be replaced by the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, the independence of the ombudsman will remain unchanged.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons Mr. Ronnie Baird and his team have no access to documents held by Equitable Life or its advisers in preparation of the FSA report on the review of the regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society. [12820]

  Ruth Kelly
  The terms of reference drawn up by the FSA board asked the review team to report on the discharge of its functions by the Financial Services Authority and the Personal Investment Authority. The review team had full access to files held by HM Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the Government Actuary's Department. The review team did not deem it appropriate or necessary to extend the review to include obtaining access to documents in the possession of Equitable Life or any of its advisers. The report will be an important source of evidence to the independent inquiry being undertaken by Lord Penrose, which will be able to look carefully into the actions of Equitable over the years.

  Euro Counterfeiting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Pericles programme will cover euro-counterfeiting in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [12971]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Pericles programme will cover euro-counterfeiting in all member states, including the United Kingdom.

  Counterfeiting of any currency is a serious criminal offence in the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to the principle of protection of the euro against counterfeiting, and to take action to support and supplement anti-counterfeiting measures with appropriate staff training and sharing of information. It is important that the United Kingdom should contribute to efforts to develop and share best practice among member states.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that penalties imposed by the FSA on insurance companies for mis-selling should be a charge to shareholders and not to with-profits funds; and if he will make a statement. [12843]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Government's response to the Treasury Committee's ninth report 1997–98 session, "The Mis-selling of Personal Pensions", which was published by the Committee as its first special report on 12 January 1998.

  Exercise Saif Sareea
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requests were submitted to the Treasury from the MOD for funds for equipment upgrade for desert conditions relating to exercises in Oman; and if he will make a statement. [12970]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the recent UK armed forces' Exercise Saif Sareea 2 in Oman. The answer is none.

  VAT Returns
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised by Customs and Excises in 2000–01 from penalties imposed upon VAT-registered traders for late returns of VAT forms; and what is the estimate for 2001–02. [12845]

  Mr. Boateng
  During 2000–01, penalties totalling £87 million were incurred by traders defaulting on their VAT payments. The amount incurred in 2001–02 will be lower, reflecting the sympathetic approach taken by Customs towards businesses affected by the foot and mouth outbreak, the reform of the penalty regime for businesses with a turnover of up to £100,000, and other recent initiatives to help small businesses to manage their VAT payments.

  Economic Cycle
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition of the economic cycle he employs for the purpose of calculating the cyclically adjusted budget 256W
  surplus or deficit; what his assessment is of the typical lengths of an economic cycle; and what assessment he has made of the (a) start and (b) end date of the last economic cycle. [12869]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury's methodology for assessing trend growth and the output gap is set out in the publication "Fiscal policy: public finances and the cycle", HM Treasury, March 1999.

  Paragraphs 2.35 and 2.36 of Budget 2001 set out the assessment of the last cycle; this will be updated in the next pre-Budget report.

  Landfill Tax Credits
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the 65 per cent. indicative targets for diverting landfill tax credits towards sustainable waste management are mandatory; and if he will make a statement. [12984]

  Mr. Boateng
  The indicative targets for diverting landfill tax credits to sustainable waste management are not mandatory. 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.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the performance of organisations seeking to divert 65 per cent. of landfill tax credits towards sustainable waste management projects will be measured. [12985]

  Mr. Boateng
  Data on the allocation of contributions to projects under the landfill tax credit scheme are reported by environmental bodies to Entrust, the regulator of the scheme. The Government will review progress based on this information in forthcoming Budget reports.

  Fuel Duty
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest submission from the Road Haulage Association on fuel duty. [12752]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are grateful for all representations and the Road Haulage Association's submission was read with interest. This will be considered in the context of the Chancellor's Budget judgment.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact the introduction of the climate change levy has had on the net tax paid by(a) manufacturing industry and (b) the service sector. [12817]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy package, including the reduction in employer NICs and support for energy efficiency investments, is expected to be broadly revenue neutral to manufacturing industry and to the service sector.

  National Insurance
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees have been paying national insurance contributions in each year since 1995. [3069]
  257W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for the number of UK employees paying national insurance contributions (NICs) are given in the table.

  Million

  Estimated number of employees paying NICs

  1995–96

  22.1

  1996–97

  22.6

  1997–98

  22.8

  1998–99

  23.6

  1999–2000

  24.1

  2000–01

  n/a

  These estimates are based on the national insurance recording system. I regret that information is not yet sufficiently complete for 2000–01 to provide a reliable estimate.

  This series reflects the increasing number of people in work who earn more than the lower earnings limit.

  For 2000–01 and 2001–02, there should be a reduction in the number of employees paying NICs as the starting point for paying NICs has been increased and aligned with the income tax personal allowance. The benefit entitlement of employees who no longer pay NICs because of this change has hem protected.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Information Technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3509]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: I have arranged for the information requested by my right hon. Friend to be placed in the Library.

  Self-Assessment Forms
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised by the Inland Revenue in 2000–01 from penalties imposed for late returns by taxpayers of self-assessment forms; and what is the estimate for 2001–02. [12844]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the Inland Revenue's accounts year November 1999-October 2000, receipts from self-assessment penalties totalled £33 million. Figures for subsequent accounts years are not yet available.

  Corporate Tax Harmonisation
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on EU plans for the harmonisation of corporate taxes by 2005. [12747]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's view is that fair tax competition is the way forward for Europe not proposals for tax harmonisation. The Government will not support any action at European level that will threaten jobs or the competitive position of British business.

  Tax Credit System
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of problems that recipients of the tax credit system have in understanding the system; and what steps he will take to ensure that further reforms to the system are easily comprehensible to intended recipients in the lower earning quintiles. [12802]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have established a comprehensive programme to monitor and evaluate the existing system of tax credits. Recipients' experiences with the current system are a part of this process and are being considered in the design of the new tax credits.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the balance of the national insurance fund was(a) in total and (b) above the Government Actuary's recommended margin (i) in April 2000 and (ii) in April 2001; and what is the forecast on the basis of plans for April 2002. [12651]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General—national insurance fund account 1999–2000 (HC446)—and the report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2001 (Cm 4933).

  These reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in the Inland Revenue were devoted to(a) tax evasion in general and (b) offshore and international tax evasion in each year since 1996; and what his estimate is for 2001 and his plans for 2002. [12652]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: A substantial number of staff in the Inland Revenue work on countering tax evasion, but for very many of them this is only a part of their job. Similarly, staff dealing with offshore and international tax evasion may also handle domestic issues. I regret therefore that information is not available in the form in which my hon. Friend has asked for it.

  Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd.
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd. will be exempted from levy under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975; and if he will make a statement. [12760]

  Ruth Kelly
  Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd. would be required to pay a levy were one to be raised under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. However, on 1 December 2001 the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) will supersede the Policyholders Protection Scheme (established under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975). The Financial Services Authority has consulted on the rules for the FSCS and will be issuing the rules shortly.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what comments the Treasury made to the Remuneration Committee of the FSA on the reputation of the FSA after consultation, prior to the decision of the FSA to reduce the chairman's bonus in January; [12847]

  (2) what conclusion the Treasury formed by December 2000 on the performance of the FSA since January 1999; and how this was communicated to the Remuneration Committee of the FSA. [13257]

  Ruth Kelly
  It would not be appropriate to disclose any information, opinions and assessments given in confidence in relation to public employment.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances an employee of the Inland Revenue is permitted to make an inquiry about a person whose tax affairs were dealt with by another Inland Revenue office. [13216]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are many circumstances in which an Inland Revenue officer may need to make inquiries about a taxpayer, some of whose affairs are dealt with by another office. For example, an officer dealing with a company's tax affairs may need information about individual directors. Or a formal inquiry into a tax return may be carried out at a different office from that which issued the return, depending on the availability of staff.

  Staff are prohibited from making inquiries or searching for data about any taxpayer except in the performance of their official duties. But those duties may often take them across the boundaries of different offices.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances an Inland Revenue inquiry about a person's financial circumstances is entitled to lead to further inquiries about that person's immediate relatives(a) generally and (b) in respect of their financial affairs. [13215]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In a formal inquiry into a tax return, an officer is statutorily entitled to ask for information which he requires in order to determine whether the return is incorrect and, if so, to what extent. Information about relatives may be relevant to that inquiry. For example, in a case where the business records are incomplete, the best way to measure the true level of income may be to estimate the taxpayer's expenditure. In that case, information about the cost of maintaining dependent relatives and their contribution to household expenses may be relevant, and may be legitimately required by the investigator.

  The results of any inquiry into one family member may show that there is a risk of tax evasion by another. There is no bar on the Inland Revenue using that information in deciding whether to inquire into the tax affairs of the second family member.

  Princess Diana Memorial Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the loss recorded in the Royal Mint annual report for 2000–01 includes a sum which is owed to the Princess Diana Memorial Fund. [12536]
  260W
  Ruth Kelly
  The loss recorded in the Royal Mint annual report for 2000–01 does not include any proceeds owed to the Princess Diana Memorial Fund.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum from the proceeds of the minting of £5 coins in 1999 in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales has been paid over to the Princess Diana Memorial Fund. [12537]

  Ruth Kelly
  The sale of commemorative and collector coins in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales raised £7,393,000 by 25 July 2001. This will be used to offset voted expenditure on projects put forward by the Diana Memorial committee. It was never intended to pay the proceeds into the Princess Diana Memorial Fund.

  The main projects are: a playground in Kensington Gardens, opened in July 2000; a walkway running through London's Royal Parks—Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, Green Park and St. James' Park; a fountain in Hyde Park by the Serpentine, due to be built by summer 2003; and the establishment of eight Diana Nursing Teams, each led by paediatric nurses trained in palliative care, to work in the community providing support to children with life limiting conditions, and their carers, as an alternative to hospital based care.

  The total cost of the park projects to date is £6,000,000. The Diana Nursing Teams cost £2,000,000 in 1999–2000 and £2,000,000 in 2000–01, and further expenditure is intended to continue and expand the programme in future years.

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Royal Mint directed banks not to accept £5 commemorative coins from their customers, but to direct customers to the Post Office. [12336]

  Ruth Kelly
  A Royal Mint team was established in order to review the system for issuing and returning UK circulation commemorative crown coins. This was a result of growing concerns regarding the total volume of returns, a number of 25p (5 shilling) crowns mixed in with consignments of £5 crowns, abuse of the current distribution system and to monitor any counterfeits.

  In order for the Royal Mint to log and analyse the returns we agreed with the UK banks and the Post Office that for ease of handling, processing and payment, all commemorative crowns should be returned via the Post Office. So, the UK banks were advised to refer customers wishing to repatriate crowns to their nearest post office whereby they can exchange them for goods and services.

  Despite this agreement we continue to receive a small number of these crowns from some banks however, we are trying to encourage them to channel all returns via the Post Office.

  This exercise is currently on-going and for the reasons outlined above we would not want to change the arrangement in the immediate future.

  Social Security (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the level of social security
  261W
  contributions in Scotland over each of the last five years (a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the United Kingdom total. [12173]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Estimates of social security contributions relating to residents of Scotland can be found in the Scottish Executive publication "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland, 1998–99".

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fireworks
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage compliance by the fireworks industry with the voluntary code of practice on the sale of fireworks prior to 5 November. [11507]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have held discussions with representative bodies of the fireworks industry and some larger retailers to agree dates for this year's voluntary sales period and to consider its effectiveness. In addition we have asked LACOTS (Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards) to remind trading standards departments of the voluntary code. We intend to review the effectiveness of the agreement after the fireworks seasons, and I would be interested in any evidence about how well the code is working.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is proposing to prevent more sub-post offices closing in the next 12 months. [12592]

  Mr. Alexander
  Implementation of the performance and innovation unit recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Government, will help to modernise and sustain the whole post office network. The Government are committed to providing transitional financial assistance to rural post offices and decisions on this will be taken following advice from the Postal Services Commission, which is expected later in the autumn. In addition, we have made available a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where traditional services would otherwise close. £15 million of ring-fenced money has been earmarked for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to help sustain and improve post offices in deprived urban areas.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress on the universal bank. [12589]

  Mr. Alexander
  Progress is being made on the detailed implementation for universal banking services and they remain on schedule for introduction when benefit payment migration begins in 2003.
  262W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the respective responsibilities are of her Department and the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the universal bank. [12389]

  Mr. Alexander
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is co-ordinating the work to modernise the payment of pensions, benefits and tax credits along with the introduction of universal banking services. The DTI retains shareholder responsibility for Consignia and responsibility for sponsorship of the post office network.

  Broadband
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on cross-border co-operation on broadband capacity purchasing from(a) Cumbria, (b) the Scottish Borders and (c) Dumfries and Galloway; and if she will make a statement. [12315]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: In each of these pathfinder areas the authorities are working with local partners to develop the provision of broadband. Cross-border discussions have taken place, but there have been no specific proposals brought to my attention regarding capacity purchasing.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made towards connection of the UK's rural communities to broadband telecommunications networks. [12731]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Government are working to make the broadband market more extensive and competitive. The market has developed so far to the point where over 60 per cent. of UK households are able to access one or more of ADSL, cable or wireless broadband technologies. We have already established the £30 million fund for RDAs and the devolved Administrations to develop schemes to extend broadband networks, and will announce a further range of measures in response to the recommendations of the broadband stakeholder group.

  3G Technology
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the(a) Treasury and (b) Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions concerning 3G mobile phone licences. [12411]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The Treasury was a member of the auction steering group that established the auction process leading to the award of the 3G licences. The Treasury and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions were involved in the production of the information memorandum sent to prospective participants in the 3G auction.

  My officials also liaise with the DTLR as necessary on planning issues affecting telecommunications, including those related to the installation of masts and other equipment for 3G networks.
  263W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates her Department has made of the increase in demand for mobile phone masts that will result from the implementation of 3G technology; and if she will make a statement. [12410]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The number of mobile masts needed for third generation mobile communications systems depends upon a wide range of assumptions about demand and technical issues. These are commercial decisions for the licensees. The Department is encouraging operators to minimise the number of installations needed by sharing facilities as long as this does not disproportionately reduce competition.

  Retailer Code of Practice
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce a retailer code of practice; and if she will make a statement. [12359]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 31 October that she had asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek to obtain undertakings from the four leading supermarket chains to comply with the code of practice on relations between supermarkets and their suppliers. A copy of her announcement and the Code have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Corporate Insolvency Liabilities
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to improve directors' awareness of their corporate insolvency liabilities. [12980]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service has produced a guide which informs directors of companies what duties and responsibilities they have if their company is subject to insolvency procedures. The Insolvency Service has also ensured that the information provided by Companies House to the officers of newly formed companies contains details of the responsibilities they have while managing limited companies.

  In addition, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry successfully applies to have an unfit director disqualified from acting as a director, or accepts an undertaking not to act in that capacity, a press release is issued in local newspapers and trade journals relevant to the insolvent company. This provides details of the director's misconduct complained of in the application to disqualify and this reporting assists greatly in the drive to increase the business community's awareness of the dangers of running a company while insolvent.

  The company law review has made proposals for a more general codification of the duties of directors under company law and the Department is studying them.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has in the next edition of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, to publish disaggregated data for energy consumption by(a) the agricultural sector, (b) the public administration sector and (c) the commercial sector; and if she will make a statement. [12099]

  Mr. Wilson
  Energy consumption data by(a) the agriculture sector, (b) the public administration sector and (c) the commercial sector are published each July for the latest three years in the "Digest of UK Energy Statistics", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. Data for 1998, 1999 and 2000 appeared in Tables 1.1 to 1.3 in this year's edition, while data for earlier years are available in previous editions of the Digest.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Governments of other countries bordering Afghanistan on the need to reopen their borders to Afghan refugees. [12683]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with the UN and other donors to persuade all of Afghanistan's neighbours to open their borders. We continue to urge all neighbouring countries to adopt an open border policy and to allow those seeking refuge safe passage.

  We should not underestimate the burden that refugees have placed on these countries. Pakistan and Iran in particular have provided generously for millions of refugees for many years. However, these neighbouring countries have the assurance that donors will provide generously for the care of these refugees. The UK has so far contributed £3 million to UNHCR for its work in the region—a combination of financial and practical support, including specialist personnel and shelter material. We are also supporting the work of a number of NGOs in neighbouring countries.

  In addition, we have set aside £11 million for immediate short-term support to the poorer communities of Pakistan, especially those most directly affected by the influx of refugees from Afghanistan. On 18 October, I announced a further £15 million package to support the Government of Pakistan in its continuing reforms and in its efforts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis for Afghans.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she gives to the UN to enable it to co-ordinate properly the humanitarian operation; and how she will help the UN to fulfil its humanitarian goals in Afghanistan. [12680]

  Clare Short
  My Department has set aside £40 million to respond to the current crisis affecting Afghans in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. About £22 million has already been allocated to agencies for their work in the region to fulfil their humanitarian goals.
  265W
  This includes £14 million to UN agencies. Our financial assistance is complemented by the provision of technical personnel, logistical, material and other practical support.

  Co-ordination for humanitarian assistance is the responsibility of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which has appointed a regional humanitarian co-ordinator based in Islamabad. We have provided £1 million to OCHA in response to the current crisis to support these co-ordination efforts. This includes the provision of technical personnel to set up a humanitarian information centre (HIC) that will collate and communicate humanitarian information on the needs and programmes to all concerned agencies. This contribution will also be used to increase the capacity of the offices of the UN resident co-ordinators in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Pakistan and Tajikistan.

  We have also provided £1 million to support the work of Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi as the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Afghanistan, who is charged with the responsibility of supervising the UN humanitarian effort in Afghanistan and negotiating the political settlement necessary to bring the conflict to an end.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what non-governmental organisations and charities her Department supports in Sierra Leone. [12904]

  Clare Short
  Non-governmental organisations and charities directly supported by DFID in Sierra Leone are listed. This excludes those non-governmental organisations that receive assistance from the international organisations such as the humanitarian agencies of the United Nations, which DFID also supports.NGOs supported by DFID in Sierra Leone

  1. Action Aid

  2. Adventist Development and Relief Agency Sierra Leone

  3. CARE

  4. Catholic Relief Services

  5. Children's Aid Direct

  6. Christian Aid

  7. Concern Worldwide

  8. Conciliation Resources

  9. International Committee of the Red Cross

  10. International Medical Corps

  11. Lutheran World Federation

  12. Marie Stopes

  13. Medical Research Council/Sierra Leone

  14. Mercy Ships

  15. Rural Aid

  16. Save the Children Fund

  17. World Relief

  18. World Vision.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list her Department's spending in Sierra Leone in the last 12 months. [12905]
  266W
  Clare Short
  Since November 2000, DFID expenditure on the Sierra Leone programme has been as follows:

  Sierra Leone programme

  £million

  Security Sector (includes Police and Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration programme)

  11.645

  Governance (includes support to Media development, Law Development, Anti-corruption. Governance reform and Elections)

  1.838

  Humanitarian Assistance

  5.679

  Budgetary Support

  19.500

  Other technical cooperation costs

  1.936

  Total

  40.598

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [12268]

  Clare Short
  We have since 1997 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.

  We do not produce anything which we would regard as campaign material. Our spending on publications over the period in question is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1995–96

  352

  1996–97

  318

  1997–98

  166

  1998–99

  347

  1999–2000

  570

  2000–01

  639

  We do not have a specific advertising budget. However, the bulk of our paid advertising is in relation to recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals. This costs between £1 million to £1.2 million annually.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the(a) humanitarian situation and (b) situation of children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [12322]

  Clare Short
  A recent Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) study on food security reported the DRC as having the world's most dramatic rise in malnutrition. This affects nearly two-thirds of the population. Infant and maternal mortality figures also continue to rise. With some progress on the peace process and a gradual improvement in access for humanitarian agencies, we have this year substantially increased the level of support for humanitarian work.

  The children of the DRC have a particularly vulnerable status. School enrolment is low and three out of four of these children drop out before they are able to finish their education. We have been particularly concerned about the

  267W
  use of child soldiers in the conflict and have repeatedly called on all parties to respect the rights of the child and urge them to initiate disarmament, demobilisation and rehabilitation programmes for children. We will continue to monitor the situation and call for all parties to respect and promote the rights of the child.

  Development Awareness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work has been undertaken by her Department with trade unions to promote development awareness. [11832]

  Clare Short
  Trade unions are one of the groups identified as a priority in our strategy paper on building support for development.

  At the level of individual projects, we are supporting the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) to increase awareness and understanding of international development issues among workplace trade union representatives and the TGWU members.

  We also support a project administered by Labour and Society International to develop new modules and teaching materials on the theme of international development for officials, educators and members of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union (MSF).

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lancashire Townscapes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list those industrial townscapes in Lancashire that are being considered by English Heritage for protection; and if she will make a statement. [10390]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage has proposed that the St. Mary's conservation area in Nelson should be extended and has requested that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts use her reserve powers for this purpose. My right hon. Friend is considering the request. I understand that English Heritage is funding a survey of historic and industrial towns in Lancashire to assist local authorities carry out their functions relating to the historic environment, including the designation of conservation areas. However. English Heritage has no current plans to ask my right hon. Friend to designate any further conservation areas.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans have been made by(a) her Department and (b) institutions involved in the preparation for Holocaust Memorial Day 2002. [11275]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 851 W.

  Television
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to the switchover to digital television. [12382]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's policy, as set out in the White Paper "A New Future for Communications" is to complete the switchover to digital terrestrial television as soon as possible, and we believe that it is realistic to aim for the period 2006–10 On 12 October, we issued a draft action plan, which is a technical, consultative document aimed at the key stakeholders who will need to work together to make progress towards switchover. The draft plan sets out the issues on which action needs to be taken, both by the Government and by the industry; to enable and encourage take up of digital television, to identify who should lead on those issues, and to set target dates for delivery. We intend to publish an agreed plan by the end of the year.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport by what date she expects(a) Channel 5, (b) digital terrestrial TV and (c) cable TV services to be available in the High Peak constituency. [12334]

  Dr. Howells
  (a) I do not expect the availability of analogue Channel 5 services to be increased because the priority is to use available spectrum for the development of digital terrestrial television (DTT). I understand, however, that these services are available in some areas of the High Peak constituency: coverage details can be found on Channel 5's website at: www.channel5.co.uk. (b) The BBC and ITC, who are responsible for the DTT transmission network, are considering, in consultation with Government and stakeholders, how to improve coverage of all DTT multiplexes across the UK and coverage information is available on the Digital Television Group website: www.dtg.org.uk. No date has been set for the provision of DTT throughout High Peak. (c) This is a commercial matter for the cable operators: I am not aware that any operator has plans to supply cable across the High Peak area.

  Tourism Industry
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the outcome of her recent meeting with senior leaders of the tourism industry. [13126]

  Tessa Jowell
  I, together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, met leading figures from the tourism industry on 10 and 11 October at Hartwell House in Buckinghamshire. This meeting was convened to discuss the immediate difficulties facing the industry in the wake of the foot and mouth outbreak and the terrorist attacks of 11 September, but also to agree the necessary programme for long term strategic reform of the industry to achieve more consistent high standards and better value for money.

  The main conclusions for action from the meeting include: the urgent need for tourism bodies to review their programmes so as best to meet the needs of the current difficulties; the importance of acting in the new spirit of

  269W
  partnership between industry and Government the creation of the CBI chaired voice for tourism, the Tourism Alliance; the need to focus public sector resources on improving co-ordination of marketing, rationalising tourism data collection so that it is more useful, improving

  Tourism Industry Seminar—Outcomes

  Who to lead

  Timescale

  Immediate short term action1

  The London Tourist Board and the English Tourism Council have been asked to review their programmes. working with the industry, to meet the new circumstances. DCMS Ministers are ready to see more than £60 million already available directed to marketing to the domestic market. The hotel and major attractions industry are creating packages to offer to the domestic market. DCMS will chase progress and encourage and support co-operation of this sort.

  Industry and associations, LTB, ETC, DCMS

  Immediate

  The British Tourist Authority is re-designing its overseas marketing campaign, in close consultation with key industry partners in the UK and overseas

  BTA

  End of October

  Other measures which might provide effective assistance are being examined. The Industry has made a number of proposals.

  DCMS

  October

  Ministers are strong advocates of and for the industry.

  DCMS

  October

  Ministers and officials are in constant discussion with the tourism industry about the impact of the events in America.

  DCMS

  Ongoing

  Medium term action2

  We will create a voice for the tourism sector which reflects the diversity of its main core industries and ensures a coherent view is put to Government on key opportunities and issues of common concern.

  CBI-supported Tourism Alliance

  Launched October, starts November 2001

  Ministers are ready to develop strong and more co-ordinated arrangements for the marketing of English tourism to the domestic market in response to the views of the industry. We are ready to concentrate public sector resources on three areas—marketing coordination, data gathering, and quality assessment. This will mean reducing support on other areas. Marketing co-ordination should have a strong private sector lead and embrace regional and local government spending.

  DCMS, ETC and the industry to develop new arrangements.

  First discussion at November Tourism Forum. New plan within six months.

  We will strengthen regional arrangements. We are committed to closer marketing co-ordination at regional level, development of strong sub-regional brands, and implementation of TIC modernisation.

  RDAs, RTBs and local authorities

  Proposals to Secretary of State by end of November.

  We are ready to develop a "Fitness for purpose" approach to better regulation of hotels and restaurants. The aim is to bring together the many regulatory controls, and make them into a basic and strong assurance to customers. Premises not meeting the standard would be improved or closed. Arrangements for modernising alcohol and entertainment licensing, and gaming, will go ahead in parallel.

  DCMS with key Department and Local Government Association.

  Report to Secretary of State by end December.

  We will bring together the many sources of public sector data on tourism performance and trends and create a partnership with the private sector to give the industry and Ministers the information which is needed to decide policy, make investments, and improve service to the customer. The first step is to rationalise what is there at present and improve coherence and leadership. One objective will be to undertake a public attitude survey, and another to report annually. There will be a regional and local dimension to this but the first phase will look at national information and data.

  DCMS, ETC, BTA

  Prepare remit for Secretary of State's approval within one month.

  We will follow a fresh approach to training and skills. Our ambition is to create a major new skills body embracing the major industries of the sector. It will drive an improvement in service quality and career opportunities. Ministers will back it strongly within Government and ensure a fair share of resources is available to support effective new arrangements.

  Industry to convene, Ministers to back it in Government.

  To be set up and seek recognition by Government by December.

  270W
  the quality of product, strengthening service through improved training and skills and developing better tourist information, including through the use of the internet.

  The following table sets these conclusions out in more detail.
  271W

  Tourism Industry Seminar—Outcomes

  Who to lead

  Timescale

  We will ensure wide adoption of the productivity and performance improvement techniques emerging for the Government supported "Productivity for Profit" initiative.

  Industry

  Launched, Review in 2002.

  We will build on the EnglandNet and other e-tourism initiatives to create a strong network of tourist information services and to encourage the take up by small and micro-businesses of electronic means of communication and booking.

  ETC, DCMS, Industry, RDAs.

  First stage by April 2002.

  1 Our approach will be to ensure Government and industry understands and appraises the impact of current challenges, co-ordinate public sector and private sector responses to those challenges, and for the public sector to make a direct contribution where that is justified.

  2 We will take this action in a new spirit of partnership between industry and Government. The industry will take the lead in modernising, improving quality and product development. Government will support where better regulation and co-ordination of public services is needed. Ministers will review in three months whether the current distribution of responsibilities supporting the joint programme is working well enough and will meet with industry again in six months to review the progress of the whole programme. All the initial action is to be taken within six months and further assignments then agreed at a further joint meeting with industry leaders.

  Sport England
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport where Sport England receives its revenue from. [13016]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England receives annual grant in aid from my Department which amounted to £37.4 million in 2000–01. It also received income in that year of £9.2 million from other sources including operating receipts from the National Sports Centres and from the sale of publications.

  Commonwealth Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost is of the compensation for the proposed use of the Commonwealth stadium in Manchester for the world athletics championships. [13015]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are no plans to use the city of Manchester stadium for the world athletics championships. Compensation to Manchester city football club, were the stadium to have been used for the 2005 world athletics championships, would have been a matter for commercial discussion between Manchester city council and the club.

  BBC Knowledge
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will introduce legislative proposals to apply the provisions of section 186 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to BBC Knowledge. [12422]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: BBC Knowledge will move to the BBC's own multiplex on 8 November 2001, when it will automatically come under the provisions of section 186.

  Treasure Act
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will announce the outcome of the review of the Treasure Act 1996. [13592]

  Dr. Howells
  The report on the Operation of the Treasure Act 1996: Review and Recommendations is being published today and I am arranging for copies to be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Situation
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [10851]

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [10873]

  Jane Kennedy
  This year has seen, among others, the murders of Ciaran Cummings, the schoolboy Gavin Brett, the journalist Martin O'Hagan and 19-year-old Peter McNally. Up to 28 October, there have been 291 shooting incidents and 298 bombing incidents relating to the security situation.

  Following advice from the Chief Constable about the involvement of the UDA, UFF and LVF, the Secretary of State specified these organisations on 12 October. The ceasefires of the other paramilitary groups are believed to be holding, although there is still a very real threat from dissident groups who want to destroy the peace process.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress the Government have made towards normalising the security environment in Northern Ireland. [10871]

  Jane Kennedy
  Along with other measures, the Government have closed, vacated or demolished 43 Army installations since the ceasefires. On the basis of the Chief Constable's judgment that the IRA's decision to put a quantity of its arms completely beyond use represented a real improvement in the security situation, the Secretary of State announced that the following installations would also be demolished:

  the observation tower on Sturgan mountain and one of the observation towers on Camlough mountain in South Armagh;

  the supersangar adjacent to the helicopter landing site at Newtownhamilton Police Station; and

  the Magherafelt Army base.

  Work to demolish all four installations has already commenced.

  Decommissioning
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the impact of General de Chastelain's recent report on decommissioning on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [10853]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of General de Chastelain's recent report on decommissioning on the stability of democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. [10858]

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact of decommissioning on the permanence of devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. [10875]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning's confirmation of the IRA's unprecedented act of decommissioning has facilitated the return of the UUP Ministers to the Northern Ireland Executive Committee and the re-election of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) as First Minister. As a result of these very positive developments, all of the political institutions should now be allowed to operate without impediment. The Government will in turn move ahead to implement the Weston Park package of proposals and its remaining commitments under the Belfast agreement.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements he will put in place to deal with decommissioning of illegally held arms after the expiry of the de Chastelain Commission. [10854]

  Dr. John Reid
  Only the period during which an amnesty may be provided expires in February next year, not the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

  The political mandate for the IICD is in the Good Friday agreement—the total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. We shall obviously consider the commission's statutory remit in the light of that and its advice on how best to achieve that key objective.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards decommissioning. [10856]

  Dr. John Reid
  I welcome the recent report from the IICD verifying that the IRA has put a quantity of weaponry, including arms, ammunition and explosives completely beyond use. This is a significant development not only in terms of moving forward the decommissioning process but also in the context of the Good Friday agreement.

  The commission also stated it would continue contact with the IRA representative in the pursuit of its mandate, the total decommissioning of arms.

  All paramilitary groups should now build upon the progress that has been made on decommissioning and all should begin decommissioning too.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent measures have been taken to encourage paramilitary decommissioning in Northern Ireland. [10863]
  274W
  Dr. John Reid
  Following the recent discussion at Weston Park, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach presented to all the constitutional parties a comprehensive package of measures, which they considered fair and balanced, and invited all parties to accept that as a way of moving the process forward. Decommissioning was one part of that package.

  Since then, the Prime Minister and I have been working with all the parties to bring about the right climate for change.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for further decommissioning of illegally held weapons. [10865]

  Dr. John Reid
  The total decommissioning of paramilitary arms is the remit of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

  The Government and all of the pro-agreement parties have said throughout the process that the details of the actual process should be left to the decommissioning commission.

  In its recent report, the commission stated it would continue contact with the IRA in pursuit of that mandate.

  It is hoped that further decommissioning events will take place in the future from both the IRA and also loyalist paramilitary groups.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the impact of de Chastelain's recent report on decommissioning has been on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. [10819]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon Friend to the statement I made to the House on Wednesday 24 October in which I stated my belief that following the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning's confirmation of the IRA's unprecedented act of decommissioning, the Belfast agreement should now be implemented in its entirety and all the political institutions allowed to operate without impediment.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the remit of the decommissioning body. [11991]

  Jane Kennedy
  The remit of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning remains as set out in the international agreement between this Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, dated 26 August 1997; and there are no plans to extend it.

  The period during which an amnesty may be provided expires in February next year. However, the political mandate for the IICD as set out in the Good Friday agreement—the total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms—remains. We shall obviously consider the statutory position in light of that and the Commission's own advice on how best to fulfil that mandate.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what specific reduced security measures have been enacted in Northern Ireland in response to the IRA's decision on 23 October to decommission. [11400]
  275W
  Jane Kennedy
  On the basis of the Chief Constable's judgment that the IRA's decision to put a quantity of its arms completely beyond use represented a real improvement in the security situation, the Secretary of State announced that the following installations would be demolished:

  the observation tower on Sturgan mountain and one of the observation towers on Camlough mountain in South Armagh:

  the supersangar adjacent to the helicopter landing site at Newtownhamilton RUC Station: and

  the Magherafelt Army base.

  Work to demolish all four installations has already commenced and significant progress has been made.

  RUC Reserve
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Chief Constable about the future of the full-time RUC Reserve. [10855]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the Chief Constable on all manner of policing and security-related matters.

  Peace Process
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for moving the peace process forward; and if he will make a statement. [10857]

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [10868]

  Dr. John Reid
  In the light of the considerable progress that has been made in recent weeks on decommissioning and in the operation of the devolved institutions, the Government will now work with the parties and with the Irish Government to move quickly ahead with the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement and also to pursue the measures set out in the Weston Park package of proposals.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of republican groups to discuss the peace process. [10870]

  Dr. John Reid
  I talk to and meet with representatives of all the democratically elected parties in Northern Ireland on a regular basis to discuss and make progress on the peace process.

  2001

  July

  August

  September

  October1

  Total

  Number of deaths

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Number of shooting incidents

  39

  24

  42

  21

  126

  Number of bombing incidents

  56

  40

  54

  29

  179

  Policing
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the policing of groups and individuals who are not part of a ceasefire. [10859]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police continue to monitor the activities of such groups and individuals and, where warranted, make them amenable to the law.

  Violent Crime
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of violent crime in Northern Ireland. [10860]

  Jane Kennedy
  The term "violent crime" covers offences against the person, sexual offences and robbery. During the year 2000–01 a total of 24,323 violent crimes were recorded in Northern Ireland, an increase of 0.7 per cent. on 1999–2000. Overall, violent crime accounted for 20.3 per cent. of all recorded offences during 2000–01, an increase of 7.9 per cent. on the previous year. A rise in the number of robberies was the main reason for this increase, although on a positive front, there was an 11.8 per cent. decrease in recorded sexual offences. Actual figures for the current year are not yet available.

  The Northern Ireland policing plan 2001–02 contains nine objectives for policing. In particular, the specific target relating to the detection rate for violent crime has been increased to 65 per cent. from the 50 per cent. target set for 2000–01. The Government are confident that the Chief Constable is doing everything possible within the resources available to him to reduce and deal with incidents of violent crime in Northern Ireland.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the review of the Parades Commission. [10861]

  Jane Kennedy
  As part of the package following the Weston Park talks and the IRA's recent decommissioning of weapons, the Government have confirmed the time is right to proceed with a review of the way in which the Parades Commission operates. We plan to announce the details shortly.

  Terrorist and Criminal Violence
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the level of terrorist and criminal violence in Northern Ireland over the last three months. [10864]

  Jane Kennedy
  Terrorist violence over the last three months has remained at a significant level. The table gives a breakdown of that violence from 1 July 2001 to 26 October 2001. Statistics for criminal violence over the last three months are not readily available.
  277W

  2001

  July

  August

  September

  October1

  Total

  Paramilitary style attacks

  Casualties as a result of shootings

  13

  21

  19

  9

  62

  Casualties as a result of assaults

  14

  4

  8

  7

  33

  1 To 26 October

  Note:

  Statistics relating to 2001–02 financial year are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  Paramilitaries
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made on the disarming of paramilitaries. [10866]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), at column 273W.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of violence attributed to(a) republican paramilitaries and (b) loyalist paramilitaries there have been since 1 January. [10869]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table provides a breakdown of security situation statistics from 1 January 2001 to 26 October 2001.

  Attribution

  Loyalist

  Republican

  N/K

  Total

  Number of deaths

  10

  1

  0

  —

  Number of shooting incidents

  190

  82

  18

  290

  Number of bombing incidents

  246

  34

  15

  195

  Paramilitary style attacks:

  Casualties as a result of shootings

  99

  60

  0

  159

  Casualties as a result of assaults

  75

  46

  0

  121

  Note:

  Statistics relating to the 2001–02 financial year are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the position of paramilitary organisations who are not committed to a ceasefire. [10877]

  Dr. John Reid
  The initial list of specified organisations was made on 30 July 1998. The current list comprises of the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, the Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers. On 12 October, it was also necessary for the Secretary of State to add the UDA, UFF and the LVF.

  This means that, among other restrictions, early released prisoners associated with those organisations can have their licences suspended and be returned to jail if they continue to engage in paramilitary activity in support of their organisations. Also, under the Terrorism Act 2000, provision relating to charges of membership will also apply.

  Electoral Fraud
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he anticipates the new measures to combat electoral fraud will come into force. [10867]
  278W
  Mr. Browne
  It is our intention that all the measures proposed by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, which will provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional functions to address the problem of electoral fraud there, will be in force by May 2003.

  Northern Ireland Executive
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the funding of the Northern Ireland Executive. [10872]

  Jane Kennedy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had no recent discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on overall funding for the Northern Ireland Executive. He is, however, in regular contact with Treasury and Executive Ministers on a range of financial issues relating to Northern Ireland.

  IRA Weapons
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the number of weapons remaining in the hands of the IRA. [10874]

  Jane Kennedy
  For obvious reasons, it is not our practice to disclose such intelligence matters. I can, however, say that substantial amounts of illegal firearms, munitions and explosives are held by various paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. That is why we continue to press all groups to decommission their arms.

  Organised Crime Taskforce
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the organised crime taskforce in Northern Ireland. [10876]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government remain committed to tackling the organised crime problem in Northern Ireland. The organised crime taskforce and the agencies in NI are achieving good results.

  This week has seen a number of successes against the organised crime gangs who operate in Northern Ireland. In the past two weeks, in two separate raids, £700,00 of drugs were seized and £80,000 of counterfeit goods were confiscated. Last week, a Customs and police operation seized 600,000 duty-free cigarettes, 150 kilos of tobacco, 6,000 litres of alcohol and a huge quantity of illegal fireworks, CDs, videos and counterfeit clothing.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much he forecasts will be spent in the current
  279W
  financial year by his Department as a direct result of measures associated with action against international terrorism after 11 September. [11073]

  Jane Kennedy
  At this point in time the Northern Ireland Office has had no notable expenditure in relation to international terrorism as a direct result of 11 September, and there is no planned expenditure for the remainder of this financial year.

  Remembrance Day
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Chief Constable of the RUC issued a directive to his officers with regard to the wearing of poppies during the annual period of remembrance centred on 11 November; and if he will make a statement. [11943]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has not issued specific instructions in relation to the coming period of remembrance. Current instructions whereby officers may, on a voluntary basis, wear poppies on their uniform caps, still apply.

  Departmental Buildings
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the total running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by his Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by his Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6789]

  Department of Health

  Acquired by

  Year

  Number

  Value (£ million)

  Location

  New bodies

  1998–99

  1

  0.328

  Bristol

  Established bodies

  1998–99

  1

  0.492

  Cambridge

  2000–01

  1

  0.092

  Manchester

  Agencies

  Established bodies

  1996–97

  1

  0.086

  Reading

  1998–99

  1

  2.277

  Reading

  1999–2000

  2

  0.009

  Kingswinford, Cambridge

  2000–01

  1

  0.039

  Harrogate

  Non-departmental public bodies

  New bodies

  1999–2000

  1

  0.029

  London

  2000–01

  12

  1.785

  London, Bristol Aylesbury, Shrewsbury, Bedford, Gloucester, Ashford, Northampton, Oxford. Wolverhampton, Easing, Welwyn Garden City

  Established bodies

  1996–97

  2

  0.035

  Nottingham, Redhill

  1997–98

  2

  0.029

  Bristol, Wigan

  1998–99

  2

  0.999

  Bristol, London

  1999–2000

  4

  0.035

  Newcastle, Bristol, Harrogate, Plymouth

  2000–01

  8

  2.669

  London (3), Newcastle, Bristol, Chester. Birmingham. Jesmond

  Note:

  Value for leased accommodation is taken as the annual rent and service charge (based on the current annual cost) and for private finance initiative/public private partnership arrangements as the annual unitary charge (based on the current annual cost) and includes the cost of the provision of facilities management services.

  Dental Treatment (Asylum Seekers)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent guidance has been issued to regional and local health authorities and trusts regarding dental treatment for asylum seekers; [10948]
  280W
  Dr. John Reid
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  Total running costs

  2,300,000

  Northern Ireland

  1,430,000

  London

  870,000

  Total running costs per m2

  110

  Northern Ireland costs per m2

  82

  London costs per m2

  235

HEALTH

  Departmental Properties
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by his Department, broken down by leases by the Department itself, its next step, agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between purchases made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those purchases made by established bodies. [7815]

  Ms Blears
  The table lists the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years (1996–97 through to 2000–01) by the Department. They include and distinguish between the Department, its next step agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between acquisitions made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those acquisitions made by established bodies.

  (2) what recent guidance has been given to (a) regional dental boards and (b) dentists regarding dental treatment for asylum seekers. [10949]

  Ms Blears
  The Department issued letters, in February 2000, to all local authorities and health authorities
  281W
  detailing the current position on prescription charges and national health service dental treatment for asylum seekers in February 2000. This explained that any asylum seeker who did not fall into one of the groups entitled to free dental treatment, for example those who are pregnant or aged under 18 (under 19 years if in full time education) would need to complete an HC1 claim form in order to receive a NHS charges certificate (HC2), but that arrangements were under review. From 1 April 2001 the national asylum support service would issue HC2 certificates on behalf of the Department to all the asylum seekers it supports. These arrangements are now in place, and HC2 certificates are issued where appropriate, along with the first support voucher This has removed the need for separate HC1 claims.

  Under current arrangements, health authorities are responsible for the dissemination of this information to dental practitioners.

  Essentially, dentists can treat asylum seekers in exactly the same way as all other patients, judging their need to pay charges using the usual criteria.

  Norwich Union
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have contracts with Norwich Union to provide healthcare premises; and what advice his Department has given to trusts on the marketing of private healthcare and health insurance products within such premises. [10018]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The Department does not hold information on the number of national health service trusts with contracts with Norwich Union to provide healthcare premises.

  The overwhelming majority of elective operations carried out in NHS 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.

  World Health Organisation Targets
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government are committed to achieving the targets set out in the World Health Organisation Charter on Transport, Environment and Health. [11080]

  Jacqui Smith
  Yes. In adopting in 1999 the World Health Organisation charter on transport, environment and health the Government confirmed their commitment to making transport sustainable to health and the environment, and to striving to implement the measures in the charter's plan of action, especially those aimed at attaining its health targets.

  Our White Paper on transport defined the national framework for creating a better, more integrated transport system and tackling the problems of pollution and congestion. The subsequent 10-year plan set out the longterm spending plans for delivering the policies described there.
  282W
  The United Kingdom is an active participant in the steering group set up to push forward implementation of the WHO transport charter, and is the lead actor for the charter's action point on public participation, public awareness and information.

  Brain Injury
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent guidance he has issued in relation to(a) the recognition of acquired brain injury and (b) the planning of rehabilitation services for those with acquired brain injury; [11670]

  (2) what plans he has to implement a national education and training programme for NHS staff on the rehabilitation and treatment of individuals with acquired brain injury; [11668]

  (3) what plans he has to undertake a review of the provision of brain injury rehabilitation services within the United Kingdom. [11669]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have issued no recent guidance on either the recognition of acquired brain injury or the planning of rehabilitation services for those with acquired brain injury.

  However, the national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions was announced in February 2001 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease and brain and spinal injury. In addition, it is also likely to set general standards of care for people with other long-term conditions or chronic illness that are not already covered by other NSFs. The Health Committee report on head injury rehabilitation will be brought to the attention of the group developing the NSF.

  We have also asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to produce a clinical guideline for the initial assessment, management and first referral of patients with head injury. NICE will start work on the guidelines in November 2001.

  Provision of brain injury services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Assemblies.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national funding mechanism for the provision of brain injury vocational rehabilitation services. [11671]

  Jacqui Smith
  We allocate funding to health authorities on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority's fair share target of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need. There are no plans to change this system.

  It is for health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Getting people back to functional independence following illness or injury is a high priority for the national health service. This year, with the Department for Work and Pensions, we are planning job retention and

  283W
  rehabilitation pilots to test the best ways of helping people with prolonged illness or disability to remain in their jobs. £12 million has been allocated to fund the pilots.

  Mental Health Services
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what alternatives are being considered to HSG(94)27 for providing auspices for inquiries into deaths in the mental health services; and when they will be introduced; [11912]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the adequacy of HSG(94)27 in providing the auspices for inquiries into deaths in the mental health services. [11911]

  Jacqui Smith
  Circular health service guidance (94)27 has been an effective mechanism since 1994 for ensuring that thorough investigations are conducted into serious adverse incidents occurring in specialist mental health services. However, in the light of the Chief Medical Officer's report 'An Organisation with a Memory' and the implementation document 'Building a Safer NHS for Patients' published in April 2001, we are establishing a system for reporting, analysing and learning lessons from adverse incidents throughout the national health service. It is important that mental health services should be included in these arrangements.

  The new system is currently being piloted and will be rolled out across the NHS from January 2002.

  Guidance on the introduction of new arrangements will be issued early next year. In future, all serious service failures or dysfunction will be subject to a full local review to establish what went wrong, to learn lessons and to take appropriate action. In addition, the Department's investigations and inquiries unit will be informed and, in conjunction with the Commission for Health Improvement, will decide whether any further investigation is warranted.

  Bed Blocking
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used in determining which local authorities would receive additional social services funding to tackle the problem of bed blocking; and how the criteria differ between the councils targeted for extra help and the others. [12230]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 30 October 2001, Official Report, columns 654–56W.

  Overseas Treatment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has put in place to ensure adequate after care for patients treated abroad; and what measures will be taken to ensure that a patient's GP can discuss a patient's case with a foreign hospital team where there is a language barrier. [12773]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Local commissioners will need to ensure that any contracts with foreign providers clearly specify the roles and responsibilities of each party, including pre-operative and post-operative care. It will be essential that there are clear
  284W
  and agreed protocols for transferring information between clinicians abroad and the United Kingdom, including general practitioners, and opportunities for UK clinicians to raise any concerns. All relevant medical records will need to be translated into English.

  These and other points will be covered in guidance for the national health service on purchasing treatment for NHS patients overseas, which the Department will publish by the end of the year.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis were(a) Portsmouth, (b) East Kent and (c) West Kent and East Surrey Health Authorities selected to test the treatment of NHS patients overseas. [12710]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The three test-bed sites were selected on the basis that all three have significant waiting time problems and are also located close to airports, ferry ports and train stations with connections to the continent.

  Logos
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of creating the new logo for the(a) Social Care Institute for Excellence, (b) General Social Care Council and (c) National Care Standards Commission. [12777]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The cost of creating the logo for the General Social Care Council was £16,000 and for the National Care Standards Commission £12,290. Both bodies followed procurement rules and tendered for the work. The Social Care Institute for Excellence is currently using an interim design produced in-house at a cost of £376.

  Overseas Doctors
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training overseas doctor applicants to the NHS will undergo before working on the wards. [12707]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Overseas doctors will be registered to practise medicine in the United Kingdom only if they have satisfied the General Medical Council that their language and clinical skills are of a sufficiently high standard to deal with patients safely.

  All doctors have to compete for national health service posts at a level appropriate to their qualifications. There is an obligation for NHS employers to ensure that each doctor they take on (whether from Europe or from overseas has the professional and communication skills necessary to carry out the duties of their specific post.

  All non-UK doctors newly recruited to the NHS are entitled to attend an overseas doctors' induction course either before or shortly after starting in post. Courses are run by postgraduate deaneries at a variety of locations and are available throughout the year. During the course, doctors are familiarised with UK and NHS cultural and ethical issues, and taken through some of the more common NHS procedures. Individual trusts routinely run local induction courses covering issues specific to their area.

  Germedic
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contact his Department has had with Germedic Gmbh. [12712]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Officials met the chief executive of Germedic on 15 October and have spoken to him several times subsequently by telephone.

  Care Homes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) care homes and (b) care home places have been lost in each health authority in each financial year since 1997. [12730]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The available information is in tables that have been placed in the Library. Table 1 shows year on year changes in the number of residential care homes and places in these homes, by local authority area. Table 2 shows year on year changes in the number of nursing homes and private hospitals and clinics and registered beds in these homes, by health authority area.

  Allied Health Professions
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether uni-professionals curriculum development and course approval for regulation purposes for allied health professions will continue to involve the professional and regulatory bodies. [13057]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health Professions Council as the regulatory body for allied health professions has responsibility to set standards for education and training and to approve courses in accordance with those standards. In doing so it will be expected to work with professional bodies who provide the registrant members of the council. It will also be expected to safeguard essential uni-professional curriculum requirements but also to enhance professional training by exploiting the benefits of multi professional and shared learning where the subject matter is common across professions.

  Chiropodists
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to enable the NHS to utilise the services of non-state registered chiropodists. [12439]

  Mr. Hutton
  Non-state registered chiropodists, also known as unregulated practitioners, are not allowed to practise in the national health service. However, we recognise that non-state registered chiropodists do have important skills to offer.

  This is one of the reasons we are proposing to modernise the regulation of professional healthcare staff. From April 2002 a new Health Professions Council will be established and all those wishing to be able to practise in the NHS will be able to seek registration. The Council
  286W
  will require all practitioners to meet accepted standards of safe practice, and apply consistent, fair and appropriate measures to deal with practitioners whose practice falls short of those standards.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  House of Lords
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he ha.s for MSPs to sit in a reformed House of Lords; and when he expects to announce them. [9461]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Government are today publishing a White Paper expressing their views on the composition of a reformed House of Lords and are seeking comments on these proposals.

PRIME MINISTER

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of tuition fees. [10891]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has announced a review of student finance, which will cover higher education tuition fees.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Prime Minister what action his Department took in recognition of Energy Efficiency Week. [11514]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 203W.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his office; 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. [10836]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 6 November 2001, Official Report, column 204W.

  European Delegations
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union. [13537]
  287W
  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Western European Union is as follows:

  Terry Davis Esq. MP (Leader)

  Full Representatives

  David Atkinson Esq. MP

  Malcolm Bruce Esq. MP

  Sir Sydney Chapman MP

  Tom Cox Esq. MP

  James Cran Esq. MP

  Bill Etherington Esq. MP

  Paul Flynn Esq. MP

  Lord Judd

  Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE

  Tony Lloyd Esq. MP

  Jim Marshall Esq. MP

  Chris McCafferty MP

  Kevin McNamara Esq. MP

  Eddie O'Hara Esq. MP

  Lord Russell-Johnston

  John Wilkinson Esq. MP

  Jimmy Wray Esq. MP

  Substitute Members

  Janet Anderson MP

  Tony Banks Esq. MP

  Baroness Billingham

  Lord Burlison

  Ann Cryer MP

  Michael Hancock Esq. CBE MP

  Baroness Hooper

  Rt. Hon. Lord Kilclooney

  Khalid Mahmood Esq. MP

  David Marshall Esq. MP

  Alan Meale Esq. MP

  Gordon Prentice Esq. MP

  Geraldine Smith MP

  Lord Tomlinson

  Dr. Rudi Vis MP

  Robert Walter Esq. MP.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Working Time Directive (Road Transport Sector)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact of the working time directive proposals on the pay levels of haulage workers. [9660]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The draft directive for mobile workers in the road transport sector is still subject to negotiation, so it would be very difficult to assess the likely impact of these proposals on levels of pay until the directive has been agreed. In any event, levels of pay for haulage drivers will remain a matter for negotiation between the employer and the employee.
  288W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made of the impact of the Working Time Directive on the haulage industry; and if he will make a statement. [9658]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In March 1998, the Department of Trade and Industry published a regulatory assessment covering the costs and benefits of working time legislation. The assessment covered all sectors of employment in the UK, including excluded sectors such as the road haulage industry. A copy of the assessment was deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Since then, the Government have held regular meetings with both sides of industry to discuss the impact of the latest proposals on the haulage industry.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the working time directive proposals to increase night-time working restrictions on day time traffic congestion. [9661]

  Mr. Jamieson
  From our regular meetings with industry, we are fully aware of the problem that an eight-hour limit for night workers is likely to have on daytime congestion. That is one of the reasons why the Government support the 10-hour figure included in the council's common position.

  Vehicle Excise Duty Evasion (Stingray System)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Stingray system for combating vehicle excise duty evasion will be introduced in Scotland. [11182]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The mobile number plate reader camera system was launched in Scotland on 23 October. I wrote to Scottish MPs, MEPs and MSPs on 18 October, to inform them about this.

  Air Traffic Control Centre, Prestwick
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what changes have been made to the proposed plans for the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick, following the delay in construction; [11245]

  (2) when the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick will recommence. [11246]

  Mr. Jamieson
  National Air Traffic Services (NATS) remains committed to investing in the New Scottish Centre (NSC) at Prestwick as part of its two-centre strategy. Following the downturn in demand for air travel arising from the events of 11 September, the Government have agreed to a proposal to delay construction of the NSC, though preparatory work on the building and system design will continue. It is not possible to be precise about the revised timing.

  London Underground
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the terms of reference for evaluation of the PPP bids for the London Underground. [11612]
  289W
  Mr. Jamieson
  London Transport is carrying out a thorough evaluation of the value for money of the bids for the London Underground PPPs, in line with the relevant guidance produced by HM Treasury and Treasury Taskforce, copies of which are already in the House Library. London Transport is also working to ensure that when it evaluates final PPP bids it addresses the issues raised by the National Audit Office in its report "The financial analysis for the London Underground Public Private Partnerships".

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has asked external(a) consultants and (b) organisations to evaluate the PPP bids for the London Underground once the final bids have been prepared; and if he will make a statement. [11613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's plans for a publicly run, privately built tube will deliver around £13 billion of investment to improve the underground's infrastructure over the next 15 years. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will only be prepared for these plans to go ahead if he is content that they represent value for money.

  London Underground is carrying out a thorough evaluation of all bids, assisted by its financial advisers PricewaterhouseCoopers and its engineering advisers Ove Amp. I understand that London Underground is also asking KPMG, its external auditor, to review the public sector comparators that London Underground has developed to guide its value for money evaluation.

  In addition, Ernst & Young will be providing the Secretary of State with an independent opinion on London Underground's evaluation of the final PPP bids, focusing on the overall robustness of the value for money conclusions reached by London Underground and its advisers.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place copies of the letters of comfort issued in relation to(a) Railtrack and (b) the London Underground PPP in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [11606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such letters have been issued.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what analyses of the impact of the discount rate on the value for money calculations on the London Underground PPP have been undertaken; and if he will place summaries in the Library. [11605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 9W. The value for money evaluation of the London Underground PPPs will be placed in the House Library, but not until London Transport has concluded its negotiations with bidders. To publish the value for money evaluation any earlier would reveal London Transport's negotiating position and so undermine its ability to achieve best value.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on London Underground fares of financing the tube improvements planned for the next 15 years by(a) PPP and (b) direct Government borrowing. [12219]
  290W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Fares for the London Underground are a matter for the Mayor. The value for money evaluation that London Underground is carrying out on PPP bids assumes that fares will do no more than keep pace with inflation whether tube improvements are financed under the PPPs or by direct Government borrowing.

  Fire Deaths (Cigarettes)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people died in the United Kingdom in 2000 in fires caused by cigarettes. [11863]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The total number of people estimated to have died in fires caused by smokers' materials (ie cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco etc.) in the United Kingdom in 2000 was 140. Of these, 135 occurred in accidental fires in dwellings.

  It is not possible separately to identify those fires that were caused by cigarettes.

  Flood Defences (Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will increase the provision for flood defences in future SSA calculations for the East Riding of Yorkshire. [11962]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government will increase SSA provision for authorities collectively up to the aggregate 4.2 per cent. increase for 2002–03 provided for in spending review 2000. To do more would mean unfairly limiting the increase in other parts of the environment, cultural and protective services SSA block. Of course, a local authority is able to increase spending on flood defence by more than this if it judges flood defence a high priority within its budget.

  The Government are just completing a review of the funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence and a report will be published later this year.

  Railway Assets
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in compiling a register of the assets of the railway system infrastructure. [12048]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The compilation of a robust asset register is a complicated task and Railtrack has agreed a two-year rolling plan with the rail regulator for the continued development of asset management and decision support systems. The new licence condition requiring Railtrack to establish and maintain a register of the condition, capacity and capability of its assets came into force on 18 April, and the first two reporting dates have been met:
  On 10 June Railtrack produced its initial guidelines to the asset register, to document the current state of asset data held and used, and identify gaps in service-critical data with plans to remedy these; and its committed development plans (eg the roll-out of its computerised maintenance information management system database).
  On 1 October Railtrack produced the first two-year rolling plan for further development of the asset register up to April 2004.
  291W
  Railtrack will continue to produce six-monthly progress reports, which will be used to monitor and review implementation of the asset register.

  Railway Safety
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many instances there have been of trains falling between rails that have spread apart in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [12047]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures provided by the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate show that during the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 there were 29 derailments due to gauge spread. Figures for this type of incident were not collected prior to 1 April 2000. Figures for the current financial year, from 1 April 2001, will not be collated until next year.

  Private Leisure Craft (Accidents)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many accidents involving private leisure craft were caused by the consumption of alcohol in the last five years. [12262]

  Mr. Spellar
  No specific records are currently kept of accidents involving private leisure craft caused by the consumption of alcohol, but it is estimated that some 47 such incidents occurred in the last five years.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council houses for rent were held on 21 April 1991 in(a) Cannock Chase, (b) East Staffordshire, (c) Lichfield, (d) Newcastle Under Lyme, (e) South Staffordshire, (f) Stafford, (g) Staffordshire Moorlands, (h) Stoke on Trent and (i) Tamworth; and what the current equivalent figures are. [12567]

  Ms Keeble
  Council houses for rent held on 21 April 1991 and the current equivalent figures.

  Council houses for rent

  1 April 1991

  1 April 2001

  (a) Cannock Chase

  7,743

  6,675

  (b) East Staffordshire

  6,226

  0

  (c) Lichfield

  5,686

  0

  (d) Newcastle under Lyme

  10,621

  0

  (e) South Staffordshire

  5,732

  0

  (f) Stafford

  7,441

  6,361

  (g) Staffordshire Moorlands

  3,674

  0

  (h) Stoke on Trent

  25,412

  22,329

  (i) Tamworth

  6,399

  5,522

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council houses for rent for each of(a) Cannock Chase, (b) East Staffordshire, (c) Lichfield, (d) Newcastle under Lyme, (e) South Staffordshire, (f) Stafford, (g) Staffordshire Moorlands, (h) Stoke on Trent and (i) Tamworth local authorities were transferred by a large scale voluntary transfer in each authority between 1 May 1997 and 31 August 2001. [12443]
  292W
  Ms Keeble
  Council houses for rent transferred by a large scale voluntary transfer in each of the following authorities between 1 May 1997 and 31 August 2001:

  Transferred

  (a) Cannock Chase

  0

  (b) East Staffordshire

  5.637

  (c) Lichfield

  0

  (d) Newcastle under Lyme

  9,887

  (e) South Staffordshire

  0

  (f) Stafford

  0

  (g) Staffordshire Moorlands

  3,132

  (h) Stoke on Trent

  1917

  1 Partial transfer only

  Building Inspectors
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many recent complaints he has received about the work of approved building inspectors. [12646]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I receive a small number of complaints about the work of approved inspectors. If my hon. Friend has concerns about any particular aspects of their work, I hope he will write to me.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the quality of work carried out by the National House Building Council as approved building inspectors. [12643]

  Dr. Whitehead
  NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. carries out building control on about half the new homes built for sale in England and Wales and on a substantial number of new homes built by registered social landlords. Local authorities carry out building control on the other new homes. I have no evidence that the quality of building control service provided by NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. is in general different from that provided in the new homes sector by local authorities.

  Building Act
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to bring into force section 38 of the Building Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [12644]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have no immediate plans to bring into force section 38 of the Building Act 1984. I keep all parts of the Building Act 1984 under review, and should a clear need to implement this section arise, I will do so.

  Rail Services (London—North Kent)
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on how capacity on rail services between London and north Kent can be increased; how the electricity supply for rail lines between London and north Kent can be improved; and how the length of trains can be increased to 12 carriages on rail services between London and north Kent. [12551]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Twelve car operation from London to Dartford possibly through to Gillingham could be achieved by a combination of the implementation of Thameslink 2000, and as part of possible negotiations to
  293W
  extend the current Connex South Eastern franchise. This would increase capacity between London and north Kent. The parties concerned are aware of the need to improve the electricity supply on these rail lines and will work together in devising a suitable solution.

  Private Rail Tracks
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that private rail tracks are marked by signs placed at the border between the public rail network and private lines. [12325]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from Railtrack that the public rail network is separated from private lines by fencing and barrier systems as appropriate. Where private lines cross over the public network, notification is provided of the type of barrier and signal process in place.

  Local Government (Minority Party Representation)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives to local authorities on the proportionality of minority party representation on committees; and what information he collates on the action taken by local authorities to observe his guidance. [12324]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Section 21(11) of the Local Government Act 2000 requires that where party groups have been declared, overview and scrutiny committees, and their sub-committees, must reflect the political balance of the local authority. My Department has issued local authorities with guidance on these requirements.

  The only exception to this is where the local authority approves a different arrangement for the allocation of committee seats without any member present voting against, under section 17(1)(B) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  All local authorities have been required to submit their constitutional proposals, including the rules for membership of overview and scrutiny committees, to the Secretary of State for consideration.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a third party right of appeal against the granting of planning permission. [12531]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 222W.

  Rail Rolling Stock
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the availability of new rail rolling stock; and if he will make a statement. [12534]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers receive monthly progress reports from the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the delivery of the new rolling stock currently on order.

  European Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report column 682W, on European railways, which TSIs are now being drafted; what work his Department has done to contribute to the scoping of the TSI drafting; if the directive will require the upgrading of main line routes in the UK to meet continental gauges; and what representations his Department has received from the rail industry about this directive. [12972]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Preparatory work has started on the first priority group of TSIs specified in article 23(1)(a) of the directive. This work is being led by the AEIF (the European Association'for Railway Interoperability), which comprises representatives from the railway operating and manufacturing industries. The UK railway industry is well represented at all levels within AEIF. Member states' involvement in the TSIs at government level is through participation in the "Article 21 Committee" set up under the directive. This committee is responsible for approving the TSIs before they are adopted and can influence the contents of the TSIs throughout the drafting process.

  We do not expect the TSIs to require the upgrading of UK main line routes to continental gauges. The directive provides for "specific cases" to be included in the TSIs to allow some existing national parameters, such as the loading gauge, to be retained in certain circumstances. We expect to seek appropriate specific cases in these respects. More generally, the directive provides for derogations from application of the TSIs in certain circumstances, including where their application would compromise the economic viability of the project and/or its compatibility with the existing rail system.

  The rail industry has been consulted on the directive from its inception and has made wide-ranging representations on its scope and potential impact.

  Jet-skis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to bring forward proposals to improve the safety of jet-skis in coastal waters. [12593]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Although Government policy is generally that recreation should be self-regulating, recreational sailing or motor boats are subject to the international regulations for the prevention of collisions (COLREGS). To comply with the COLREGS vessels must be navigated in a safe and responsible manner.

  In the UK, personal watercraft such as jet-skis are not covered by merchant shipping regulations because the UK's powers to make safety regulations apply to ships.

  However the Government intend to amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 when parliamentary time allows in order that specified legislation, such as the COLREGS, can be applied to jet-skis. Contravention of the COLREGS is a criminal offence.

  Building (Flood Plains)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many
  295W
  houses were built on flood plains in the last year; and what percentage this is of the total number of houses built. [12888]

  Ms Keeble
  The latest information on new house construction and its relationship to flood-risk areas was published in "Land use Change in England: No. 16", in July 2001. This showed that in 1998 about 135,000 new dwellings were constructed, of which about 14,500 (11 per cent. of the total) were within the indicative flood plain as shown on maps published by the Environment Agency in December 2000. Many of the new houses in flood-risk areas were constructed behind adequate flood defences. For example 37 per cent. of new houses in London were in flood-risk areas that are largely defended to a very high standard as a result of the Thames Barrier.

  For the 10 years from 1989–98, 9 per cent. of the land changing to residential use and 10 per cent. of the almost 1.4 million new dwellings built were within the indicative flood plains. This compares to the 12 per cent. of all land in England that is within the indicative flood plains.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of how many houses will be built on flood plains in the next(a) two, (b) five and (c) 10 years. [12890]

  Ms Keeble
  No such estimate can be made because of the wide range of factors affecting the future volume and location of house-building. However, we are continuing to monitor land-use change in relation to areas of flood-risk. Through the high-level targets published by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1999, we are also monitoring the responses of the Environment Agency to consultations on planning applications and whether decisions were in line with or contrary to their views. My Department is currently examining with the Environment Agency how the implementation and effectiveness of the flood-risk related policies in the new planning policy guidance note 25 issued in July 2001 on "Development and flood risk" can best be secured.

  Railway Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that adequate disabled access is being provided at railway stations in order to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [12912]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Access to railway stations for disabled people is covered by part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Since October 1999, service providers have been required to take reasonable steps to change practices. policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service. From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.

  My Department, with the Institution of Highways and Transportation and a number of other bodies, has commissioned guidance, which should be available early next year, on best practice in the design of public transport
  296W
  infrastructure and the pedestrian environment. This will help transport service providers to meet the duties imposed by the DDA.

  In addition, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), which took over responsibility for protecting the interests of disabled passengers from the rail regulator earlier this year, requires that all licensed train operating companies publish a disabled people's protection policy describing their facilities and policies for passengers with disabilities. These policies are subject to approval by the SRA and must take account of the SRA's code of practice, "Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers", a revised version of which was recently circulated for consultation.

  Port Policing
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has completed his review of the policing of ports: and if he will make a statement. [13107]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Work on this review is continuing and I hope that it will be completed early in 2002.

  Commercial Floor Space
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of UK commercial floor space is provided by buildings which are(a) larger than 1,000 square metres, (b) larger than 500 square metres and (c) larger than 100 square metres. [12100]

  Ms Keeble
  We do not currently have UK floorspace broken down as requested. In England and Wales in 2000, there were 1,340,780 commercial and industrial hereditaments with a total floorspace of 568,909 sq m. (A hereditament is a rateable unit of property and corresponds mainly to groups of buildings, individual buildings or parts of buildings.)

  More information is available in 'Floorspace and Rateable Value for Commercial and Industrial Properties 2000', a copy of which has been placed in the House Library. The data in the publication come from the administrative databases of the VOA.

  Container Ports
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on demand for container port capacity in the United Kingdom. [13518]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our ports policy paper, "Modern Ports: A UK Policy", published last November, recognised a need to be better informed about developments in the UK port industry. The Department recently issued a discussion paper, "Recent developments and prospects at UK container ports", which notes that most industry forecasts point to an overall shortage of container movement capacity in the UK over the next 10 years. Market pressures are driving up the size and draught of container ships, which means that container facilities need to offer deep water with good tidal windows and ample manoeuvring room; there is only a limited number of sites capable of meeting these criteria. Market considerations, such as proximity to principal shipping lanes and markets,
  297W
  and other criteria such as transport access, including the availability of deep water concentrate demand in the south-east and east of England.

  As indicated in "Modern Ports", the Government believe there are important national economic benefits in meeting the growth in demand. We recognise that this would require significant container port capacity increases in the south-east and east of England over the next few years. There are relatively few specific sites where such capacity can realistically be provided which meet the criteria previously noted. At the same time, we are well aware that some expansion proposals may have significant local environmental impacts and that these represent a challenge to which those proposing port development need to rise. Planning decisions will have to take due account of these considerations.

  The discussion paper discusses recent trends and prospects for demand at container ports and how it might be met. Its purpose is not to discuss in detail all the issues which planning procedures have to address, but to promote a better understanding of the ports and shipping business, and of the demands which are now causing pressure on capacity. Copies of the paper are in the Library, and it is also available from my Department (EAMI Division, Zone 1/34, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SWIP 4DR) and on the Department's website. A further consultation paper is planned discussing project appraisal criteria to be applied to port developments.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the level of fly tipping in the countryside; and if she will make a statement. [6613]

  Mr. Meacher
  The fly tipping forum, under the chairmanship of the Environment Agency, has commissioned research to assess the problem of fly tipping on farmland. However, the survey, which is an essential part of the project, was suspended on the outbreak of the foot and mouth epidemic. The project will be carried out as soon as practicable.

  The action being taken by the Government on fly tipping and other forms of unlawful waste disposal was set out most recently in the Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report on the Environment Agency (Cm 4832—paragraphs 55–60).

  Live Bovine (Ear Tag)
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence she has received of a slaughter team in Yorkshire cutting off the ear of a live bovine in order to get an ear tag. [2799]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001 and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will use the veterinary laboratories at Stormont for foot and mouth blood testing as a supplement to Pirbright; [2739]

  (2) what confidentiality or secrecy agreements temporary veterinary inspectors have to sign on joining her Department. [2759]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001 and placed copies of my letters in the Library.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to assist small farms following the foot and mouth outbreak. [2555]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 13 August 2001 and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her most recent assessment is of the impact of foot and mouth disease on the economy of rural Northumberland and its market towns. [4683]

  Alun Michael
  Foot and mouth disease restrictions have had a massive impact on rural economies. We have commissioned a study to help quantify the impact on a selection of areas typical of those affected, and Newcastle university is currently undertaking research specific to Northumberlan.

  Twelve market towns in the north-east, including Berwick-on-Tweed and six others in Northumberland, have been selected for inclusion in the market towns regeneration programme announced in the rural White Paper. This will help counter the effects of foot and mouth by providing a boost to the economies and communities of the towns and their rural hinterlands.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received in favour of treating the north of Northumberland as a foot and mouth disease free area; and if she will make a statement. [11085]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The Department has received a number of representations on this subject. When the autumn movements arrangements were announced, Ministers said that foot and mouth free status would normally be gained on a county or unitary authority basis. However, it was also made clear that we would consider splitting counties between different foot and mouth disease status if circumstances warranted this. So far, this has been done only in Powys and north Yorkshire, but we are keeping other candidates, including Northumberland, under constant review.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of the cases of FMD in sheep in Wales were diagnosed on the basis of clinical symptoms alone; and how many were confirmed positive by laboratory tests. [9852]
  299W
  Mr. Morley
  Since the start of the foot and mouth disease outbreak, the number of infected premises in Wales which had sheep present totals 107. Of these 107 premises, 94 had laboratory tests conducted of with 54 returned positive results.

  Notes:

  1. The 107 premises noted above may have contained other animals as well as sheep.

  2. A negative lab result does not mean that infection was absent. Each case is confirmed on the basis of a clinical diagnosis of foot and mouth disease by the vet on the farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence.

  Source:

  DEFRA Disease Control System database as at I November 2001. The figures may be subject to revision as quality assurance of data is carried out.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations the Government have received about a public inquiry into the handling of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [9850]

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations she has received in favour of a public inquiry into the foot and mouth crisis. [9263]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have received a number of representations from a variety of sources on this subject. These have mainly been from parish, district and borough councils.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of recent research into the relationship between the number of animals slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak and the promptness of the implementation of a 24 hour slaughter policy. [7723]

  Mr. Morley
  The foot and mouth disease control policy is to slaughter all susceptible animals on infected premises within 24 hours of the infection being reported and, with allowance for limited local veterinary discretion, all susceptible livestock on contiguous premises within 48 hours.

  The Department's implementation of the policy is likely to be one of the issues that will be examined by Dr. lain Anderson's lessons learned inquiry.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many individual payments have been made to farmers following foot and mouth disease of(a) £1,000,000 to £1,999,999, (b) £2,000,000 to £2,999,999, (c) £3,000,000 to £3,999,999 and (d) in excess of £4,000,000. [11799]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The information on individual payments to farmers that you requested is as follows:

  Number of payments

  £1,000,000 to £1,999,999

  56

  £2,000,000 to £2,999,999

  8

  £3,000,000 to £3,999,999

  3

  In excess of £4,000,000

  1

  300W
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many infected premises were identified in Powys in the foot and mouth outbreak. [R] [12834]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of infected premises cases in Powys is available on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk. The website is updated daily.

  As at 5 November 2001 there had been 69 infected premises in Powys.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contiguous culls were started more than 48 hours after samples had been collected from infected animals on the contiguous infected premise in Powys in the foot and mouth outbreak. [R] [12835]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers the three inquiries into foot and mouth have to compel(a) Ministers and (b) officials to give evidence. [12612]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Given their non-statutory nature, Ministers and officials may not be compelled by the two Government inquiries or the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food to give evidence. However, Ministers and officials are expected to co-operate fully with the two inquiries and the policy commission and compulsion is not an issue.

  Light Lambs
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many lighter lambs the Government plan to buy in 2001. [6661]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the light lamb scheme introduced from September 2001, the Government are prepared to pay £10 for the buying up of light lambs for which there is currently no export market because of the foot and mouth export ban. This could cost up to £25 million in purchase costs but estimates of uptake are uncertain. The scheme will not operate in 2002 and we expect farmers to look into selling lambs into the food chain as their first priority.

  Waste Disposal
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to ensure that incineration is only used to burn sorted, post-recycled waste and not mixed household waste; and if she will make a statement. [4149]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The Government have now set each local authority statutory targets for recycling and composting. In future, therefore, material burnt in municipal waste incinerator residues cannot be counted towards meeting the statutory recycling targets.

  Sugar Beet Industry
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support is to be given by her Department to the sugar beet industry over the next five years. [4494]
  301W
  Mr. Morley
  Support for the sugar beet industry is governed by the European Union's common agricultural policy (CAP) regime for sugar. A new regime was agreed at the May Agriculture Council and runs for five years from 1 July 2001. This maintains support prices for sugar and sugar beet at previous levels, but ends support for the storage of sugar. The regime will be subject to review at the beginning of 2003 on the basis of a Commission report and any necessary proposals. The Government's view is that the EU support for sugar needs to be put on a more sustainable basis.

  Carcase Burial Site, Petrockstowe
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will state, in relation to the carcase burial site at Ash Moor, Petrockstowe,(a) what the level of the water table is below the surface of the land and (b) whether a microbiological study has been conducted into the use of the land for the burial of animal carcases; if she will publish the environmental impact and risk assessments for the site and list the recommendations they made; which legal requirements were complied with before construction of the site started; what has been (i) the cost of work to date and (ii) the continuing cost of upkeep; what additional cost will be incurred if the site is brought into use for the burial of animal carcases; and if she will make a statement. [R] [10735]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: In relation to the burial site at Ash Moor, Petrockstowe:

  (a) The level of the water table is 1.3, to 3.5 m below ground level.

  (b) No. A microbiological study is not necessary as the only vectors for micro-organisms to travel from burial into the environment are in the leachate or gas. The environmental assessment describes how these vectors will be controlled.

  The environmental statement will be published after local consultation. The document is currently in draft format and is being finalised prior to local consultation.

  Prior to construction an Environment Agency risk assessment (available from the Public register at Exminster House, Miller Way, Exminster, EX6 8AS) was completed on 11 April 2001. EA authorisation under regulation 18(3)(a) of the Groundwater Regulations 1998 was granted on 12 April 2001. (Construction at Ash Moor started on 20 April 2001).

  (i) £5.6 million is the cost of the work to date but this figure is subject to confirmation as negotiations are on-going with one of the contractors.

  (ii) £20,000 per week is the continuing cost of upkeep.

  If the site is brought into use for the burial of animal carcases the one off cost for one cell would be approximately £350,000. If three cells were used the cost rises to approximately £670,000 and if all cells were used the cost would be approximately £1,550,000. On top of this, there would be costs for odour controls, long-term maintenance and monitoring and testing. These are expected to be approximately £350,000–£400,000 per annum irrespective of the number of cells used. Such costs would fall after four or five years.

  Compensation (Tuna Fishermen)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on compensation to UK tuna drift net fishermen for the withdrawal of their licences. [11591]

  Mr. Morley
  Funding available under Cornwall's objective 1 fisheries programme includes grants for the conversion of fishing vessels to more environmentally friendly fishing methods. Depending on the new fishing method chosen, conversion from drift netting could be treated as a priority under this scheme.

  Those affected by the ban may also apply under the decommissioning scheme which I recently announced.

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to support livestock markets in England and Wales to ensure that they have a viable future; and if she will provide financial aid and support for livestock markets to assist with the financial costs they are incurring due to additional cleaning and disinfecting measures that are in place. [10497]

  Mr. Morley
  The question of whether, and if so under what conditions, livestock markets will reopen is kept under review in the light of the developing disease situation.

  Livestock markets are commercial operations, and there are no plans to offer them subsidies from the public purse.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what long-term plans her Department has for local collection points at livestock markets; what plans she has(a) to help livestock farmers to off-set the costs of having their livestock collected at markets and (b) for assisting markets with the costs they incur in acting as collection points. [10499]

  Mr. Morley
  The question of whether, and if so under what conditions, livestock markets will reopen is kept under review in the light of the developing disease situation.

  There are no plans to offer subsidies (a) to farmers to offset the cost of having livestock collected at markets or (b) to markets to offset costs incurred in acting as collecting points.

  Devolved Administrations
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly Committees; and to what categories of document she gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (w) Scottish parliament, (x) Welsh Assembly, (y) Northern Ireland Assembly and (z) House of Commons select committees. [7045]

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

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Research Programme
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will provide the information on her Department's TSE research programme promised in her statement of 22 October. [13487]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have today placed a paper describing the programme in full in the Library of the House.

  Live Animal Exports
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many exporters of live animals have been found to have breached the live transport regulations; and how many have had their licence revoked since July 1997. [10389]

  Mr. Morley
  Since July 1997, anyone transporting farm livestock for journeys exceeding eight hours by road or any animals on commercial journeys by rail, sea or air must hold a specific authorisation. The TRADE database, maintained by DEFRA, records enforcement action under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 but does not separately identify transporters who are exporters of live animals. No specific authorisations have been revoked. One case is pending.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire of 3 April concerning Mr. Gale, 4 April concerning Chaddesley Corbett, 18 April concerning Mr. and Mrs. Morris, 20 April concerning Mr. Boaz, 25 April concerning Mr. Chadwick, 30 April concerning the Wyre Piddle By-Pass, 30 April concerning Ann Ward and 2 May concerning landfill sites. [2705]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Replies have been sent to all the hon. Member's letters to MAFF Ministers with the exception of his letter of 30 April, of which I am afraid we have no record.

  Fishing Industry
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what short-term provision she will make to North sea trawlermen; and if she will make a statement. [11996]

  Mr. Morley
  The priority for action to help the fishing industry is to reduce the current excess of fishing capacity. I have therefore announced a grant scheme for the decommissioning of fishing vessels. Grants are also available for the conversion of vessels to introduce more environmentally sensitive fishing methods and to improve the handling of fish.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of(a) current and (b) projected cod stocks for the next three years in the North sea; [11964]

  (2) what the Government's policy is in relation to the future of the British trawling industry in the North sea; and if she will make a statement. [11997]
  304W
  Mr. Morley
  The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) estimates that the spawning stock biomass of cod in the North sea will stand at 55,400 tonnes at the beginning of 2002, which ICES considers to be outside safe biological limits. The biomass in future years will depend on the level of exploitation as regulated by management measures and on natural developments. The Government's policy is to work with EU partners, through recovery plans and other measures. to ensure a sustainable future for trawling and for other sectors of the British fishing industry, exploiting opportunities in the North sea and elsewhere.

  French Beef Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much French beef was imported in the last 12 months. [12077]

  Mr. Morley
  The volume of beef imported into the UK from France in the 12-month period from September 2000 to August 2001, as recorded by the overseas trade statistics, was approximately 5,700 tonnes. The country from which these imports originated is not recorded in the overseas trade statistics; therefore, not necessarily all beef shown as being imported from France will be of French origin. Similarly, this figure will exclude any beef of French origin imported from other member states.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's relationship to the Food Standards Agency. [11791]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: DEFRA is responsible for the promotion of sustainable development across government and society at large, both in the UK and internationally, leading the renewal of rural areas and promoting an efficient, competitive and sustainable food chain. The main objective of the Food Standards Agency is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food, including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied, and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food. The two Departments have a close working relationship.

  Horticulture
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on(a) variations in the prices of horticultural plants in the EU and (b) the impact of localised funding support on such prices. [12167]

  Mr. Morley
  No such information is collated by the Department, though we do compile data on UK horticultural production, including the price of selected flowering pot plants in certain wholesale markets in England.

  Apples
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much
  305W
  subsidy from the (a) UK and (b) EU Bramley apple growers have received in (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) England each year since 1981; [11976]

  (2) how many apple processing plants have been given grant in aid in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England since 1981; [11978]

  (3) how many apple processing plants have closed in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) England since 1991. [11979]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The information is not available in the form requested. Apple growers may have received payments under a variety of schemes and from a number of Departments but are not generally identifiable as such from the records held.

  The Department does not hold information on the number or location of apple processing plants.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations she has received for arable compensation from British farmers in the year prior to the 31 October deadline; and from whom they came. [12301]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received numerous representations about arable agrimonetary compensation directly from farmers, from their unions and other organisations, and through hon. Members' correspondence.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps she has taken to secure agrimonetary compensation from the European Union. [12300]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 738W.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with ETJ Ministers about a replacement to the agrimonetary compensation scheme; and if she will make a statement. [12357]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: There have been no discussions with EU representatives concerning a replacement to the agrimonetary compensation arrangements.

  Correspondence/Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when will she reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. dated 27 July, regarding(a) import of German beef, (b) prawn quotas and (c) sheep farming in Kintyre; [8638]

  (2) when she will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute on 16 October, ref. 8638. [12657]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: My noble Friend, Lord Whitty, replied to the letter from the hon. Member on 6 November.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects testing for TB to resume in Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement. [12354]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Veterinary resources in Gloucestershire are still subject to pressures of work in support of foot and mouth disease control. TB testing will resume as and when resources become available. It will be prioritised in accordance with veterinary risk assessment.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make provision to compensate for the cleansing and disinfecting costs involved in animal movement; and if she will make a statement. [12348]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: There is currently no provision to compensate farmers for the cost of cleansing and disinfecting involved in the movement of animals and there are no plans to do so.

  Imported Foods
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further measures are being implemented to check against possible contamination of imported foods. [13018]

  Mr. Morley
  Adequate measures are in place to control legally presented imports of products of animal origin. All products of animal origin imported from third countries into the UK must enter at designated UK border inspection posts (BIP) where they are subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and a percentage of consignments undergo physical checks. These checks are designed to establish that the products meet EU import conditions. Contaminated consignments would be rejected.

  In respect of food not of animal origin, the Food Standards Agency monitors general food enforcement activity by all local authorities, including port health authorities, and has recently begun a programme of audits to provide more detailed information on enforcement standards.

  Farm Woodland Schemes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers participate in farm woodland schemes. [12806]

  Mr. Morley
  Between 1988 and the end of June 2001, there were 8,572 approved applications in England under the farm woodland premium scheme and/or its predecessor the farm woodland scheme. Individuals may make more than one application.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that the code of practice on the
  307W
  relationship between suppliers and supermarkets is made available to farmers and growers in Worcestershire; and if she will make a statement. [12676]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published the code of practice on 31 October 2001 and asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek to obtain undertakings from four leading supermarket chains within four weeks.

  The code can be found as an attachment to the relevant press release on the Department of Trade and Industry's website: http://www.dti.gov.uk

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Private Finance Initiative (Employees' Rights)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on protection of employees' rights and conditions of service where PFI projects are introduced to the public sector. [10717]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are committed to protecting the rights and existing terms and conditions of staff in transfers from the public sector to the private sector under public private partnership arrangements. To this end the Cabinet Office has published a statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector. This is accessible on the Cabinet Office website: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/2000/tupe/

  Departmental Spending
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the UK in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total spending this constitutes; and if he will make a statement. [6785]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 854–56W.

  Council of the Isles
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future programme of meetings of the Council of the Isles. [10862]

  Mr. Prescott
  The British-lrish Council, brings together the British and Irish Governments, the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

  The British-Irish Council meets in different formats. Since the first summit meeting held in London in December 1999, a number of meetings have taken place in different sectoral areas at ministerial and official level.
  308W
  The most recent meeting of the Council took place in Dublin on 13 September 2001. Officials discussed the issue of misuse of drugs, the area of work for which Ireland is the lead administration within the Council.

  The Irish Government will host the next British-Irish Council summit. The drugs issue will be the main item for discussion at the summit. Progress in the other areas of work of the Council will also be reviewed.

  The Government look forward to further meetings taking place in the agreed areas of work.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department recorded in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; and on how many occasions in those years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (A) within and (B) outside his Department. [13130]

  Mr. Leslie
  Within my Department and its agencies over the last two years there have been no cases of computer hacking from (A) within or (B) outside and no instances of fraudulent use of computers although there have been 16 cases of theft in 1999–2000 and nine in 2000–01.

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many consultation documents were issued by his Department from(a) 15 October to 14 January, (b) 15 January to 14 April, (c) 15 April to 14 July and (d) 15 July to 14 October in each year from 1996. [12895]

  Mr. Leslie
  The number of consultation documents issued by the Cabinet Office was as follows:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  (a) 15 October to 14 January

  2

  1

  1

  3

  —

  (b) 15 January to 14 April

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  (c) 15 April to 14 July

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  (d) 15 July to 14 October

  —

  1

  —

  —

  9

  No formal consultation documents were issued in the other periods given in the question. The figures do not include rune technical documents published between 1999 and 2001. These documents went out for consultation but the Cabinet Office does not hold records of the precise dates of issue.

  Since the beginning of 2001, formal Cabinet Office consultation documents (and those of other central Government Departments) have been available from the online central register of consultations at http// www.ukonline.gov.uk.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were prosecuted for committing benefit fraud in financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [7579]
  309W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the tables:

  Benefits Agency fraud investigations

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Cautions and administrative penalties as an alternative to prosecution1

  Total

  1997–98

  12,009

  —

  12,009

  1998–99

  11,185

  2,835

  14,020

  1999–2000

  9,977

  12,332

  22,309

  2000–01

  9,030

  15,092

  24,122

  Local authority investigations2

  Year

  Number of successful prosecutions3

  Number of administrative penalties1 administered as an alternative to prosecution3

  Total3

  1997–98

  700

  —

  700

  1998–99

  800

  —

  800

  1999–2000

  860

  390

  1,250

  2000–01

  1,100

  550

  1,650

  1 Administrative Penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, were introduced by the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act (1997) with effect from December 1998.

  2 Figures are taken from local authority management information returns. It is possible that there could be some double counting with Benefits Agency data if there were cases which involved a joint prosecution.

  3 Data are not available for all 409 local authorities. The total for Great Britain includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents. The figures have been rounded to two significant figures.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many national insurance numbers have been issued; and what plans he has to review the procedures for issuing, cancelling and verifying NI numbers. [8341]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We regularly review data cleansing activities on the departmental central index (DCI) and are currently looking at issues relating to NINO security as a whole. This includes reviewing procedures and building on work already done to identify and further safeguard vulnerable accounts.

  There are approximately 83 million national insurance numbers (NINOs) currently held on the DCI. Other than the 47 million NINOs used by UK residents over 16, this figure includes approximately 12.5 million child reference numbers for all children included on claims to child benefit, 13.5 million for people who are dead and whose numbers remain in order to allow surviving spouses to claim contributory benefit entitlement and 2 million for those in receipt of benefit abroad. The remaining estimated 8 million will include UK citizens who have migrated to other countries, short-term immigrants/ holiday workers and deceased persons where notification of death has not been received.
  310W
  Duplicate NINOs are 'cancelled' or removed from the DCI as and 'when they are identified. The cancellation of NINOs, other than those discovered to be duplicates or unused, is not carried out as it is considered that the removal of 'inactive' records opens a gateway to identity fraud. The retention of a deceased person's NINO is necessary to protect the inheritable rights of a surviving spouse to ensure they are awarded the correct rate of retirement pension.

  The procedure for issuing NINOs has been tightened through the enhanced NINO allocation process which was introduced nationally from April 2001. This aligns the process for the allocation of both benefit inspired and employment inspired NINOs and ensures consistency of approach is maintained throughout the country, thereby securing the adult registration gateway. All adult applicants for a NINO are interviewed by dedicated staff who have received specific specialist training. Information given by the applicant in support of their application is corroborated by expert staff who also scrutinise documentation provided using specialist equipment. A more stringent internal checking regime ensures that a NINO application is valid and that the applicant does not already have a NINO.

  We are currently examining new initiatives that address the issues around NINO security and propose to do more in the future to improve the procedures for managing NINOs.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what considerations and costs are taken into account when determining the level of jobseeker's allowance. [10575]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Jobseeker's allowance consists of both a contribution-based and an income-based element. The rates of jobseeker's allowance are intended to cover normal day-to-day living expenses and are reviewed annually using the Rossi index.

  Entitlement to contribution-based jobseeker's allowance is not affected by the amount of capital a person has although part-time earnings and occupational or personal pensions are taken into account. When determining income-based jobseeker's allowance most forms of income a person or their partner have are taken into account. The amount of capital held can also affect the amount of benefit.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the staff of the Child Support Agency while the new assessment procedures are implemented. [10417]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. David Willetts, dated 6 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 what plans the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has to increase the staff of the Child Support Agency whilst the new assessment procedures are implemented.

  311W
  The amount of staff in the Child Support Agency will grow by around 1,000 during the period in which the new procedures will be implemented.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time was between receipt of requests to re-examine claims for attendance allowance and their examination, in each of the last four years. [11386]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated November 2001:The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the average time was between receipt of requests to re-examine claims for Attendance Allowance and their examination in each of the last four years.
  The actual average clearance times for Attendance Allowance (AA) reviews between April 1997 and September 2001 are shown in the attached table. Please note that under the Decision Making and Appeals (DMA) procedures introduced in October 99, the review process changed in some respects and was henceforth termed reconsiderations. Reconsiderations occur when a claimant asks for a claim to be looked at again within one month of the previous decision.
  The DMA procedures introduced in 1999 led to temporary backlogs of work, and taken with a growing caseload for disability benefits, the average time taken to reconsider claims increased very significantly. These backlogs were tackled as a priority and the average clearance time for reconsiderations is now significantly lower.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Date

  Average days taken

  Reviews (AA) April 1997-March 1998

  April 1997

  43.20

  May 1997

  44.72

  June 1997

  53.69

  July 1997

  53.17

  August 1997

  52.57

  September 1997

  52.17

  October 1997

  50.40

  November 1997

  47.99

  December 1997

  45.34

  January 1998

  48.41

  February 1998

  42.30

  March 1998

  38.48

  Reviews (AA) April 1998-March 1999

  April 1998

  39.10

  May 1998

  38.04

  June 1998

  38.90

  July 1998

  40.58

  August 1998

  42.06

  September 1998

  43.54

  October 1998

  43.54

  November 1998

  43.24

  December 1998

  44.38

  January 1999

  46.05

  February 1999

  54.39

  March 1999

  44.13

  Reviews (AA) April 1999-March 2000

  April 1999

  44.34

  May 1999

  46.07

  June 1999

  51.14

  July 1999

  54.73

  August 1999

  54.61

  312W

  Date

  Average days taken

  September 1999

  52.57

  October 1999

  53.98

  November 1999

  67.75

  December 1999

  75.17

  January 2000

  90.78

  February 2000

  105.59

  March 2000

  129.80

  Reconsiderations (AA) October 1999-March 2000

  April 1999

  —

  May 1999

  —

  June 1999

  —

  July 1999

  —

  August 1999

  —

  September 1999

  —

  October 1999

  24

  November 1999

  28

  December 1999

  36

  January 2000

  52

  February 2000

  62

  March 2000

  65

  Reconsiderations (AA) April 2000-March 2001

  April 2000

  63

  May 2000

  60.2

  June 20005

  4.4

  July 2000

  50.9

  August 2000

  47.5

  September 2000

  51.8

  October 2000

  46.1

  November 2000

  44.9

  December 2000

  42.2

  January 2001

  44.4

  February 2001

  40.5

  March 2001

  35.6

  Reconsiderations (AA) April 2001-September 2001

  April 2001

  36

  May 2001

  33.9

  June 2001

  35.3

  July 2001

  36.1

  August 2001

  36.1

  September 2001

  38.5

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what factors determine the length of time for a decision to be given in response to those who request that their claims for attendance allowance are re-examined; and if he will make a statement. [11388]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 6 November 2001:The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what factors determine the length of time for a decision to be given in response to those who request that their claims for Attendance Allowance are re-examined; and if he will make a statement.
  A number of factors can affect the length of time it takes to re-examine claims for Attendance Allowance. In particular, before a final decision can be taken on their case, a decision maker (DM) may need additional evidence from claimants or further medical evidence or reports about the effects of their disabilities on their care needs.
  I hope this is helpful.
  313W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals against decisions on attendance allowance have been made in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how many(a) have been allowed, (b) have been dismissed and (c) are awaiting a decision in each of the last four years. [11385]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Month

  AA appeals registered

  Allowed appeals (a)

  Dismissed appeals (b)

  Outstanding appeals (c)

  Total number of cleared cases (d)

  October 2000

  1,434

  386

  3

  3,116

  1,271

  November 2000

  1,545

  502

  6

  2,284

  1,539

  December 2000

  1,023

  425

  6

  1,958

  1,246

  January 2001

  1,311

  613

  8

  1,698

  2,008

  February 2001

  1,330

  636

  4

  1,672

  1,770

  March 2001

  1,442

  642

  5

  1,649

  1,688

  April 2001

  1,317

  431

  1

  1,799

  1,227

  May 2001

  1,212

  448

  3

  1,646

  1,237

  June 2001

  1,263

  430

  3

  1,475

  1,210

  July 2001

  1,331

  431

  3

  1,447

  1,266

  August 2001

  1,261

  397

  3

  1,516

  1,142

  September 2001

  1,129

  338

  5

  1,676

  1,078

  (a) Allowed appeals include allowed or increased appeals.

  (d) Dismissed appeals include cases where entitlement is reduced or disallowed on appeal.

  (c) Outstanding appeals include all cases sent to the ribunal awaiting a decision.

  (d) The total number of cleared cases column includes allowed, dismissed, maintained and various other outcomes that are not appropriate to the stated categories.

  It is not possible. from overall statistics to track individual claims through the subsequent stages.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time is for dealing with requests by those seeking an explanation for decisions relating to claims for attendance allowance. [11384]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated November 2001:The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the average time is for dealing with requests by those seeking an explanation for decisions relating to claims for attendance allowance.
  There are two types of explanation available to claimants, a verbal explanation and a written explanation. A customer is entitled to ask for an explanation in one or both forms to help them understand the reasons for the decision on their entitlement to Attendance Allowance. The actual average clearance times for requests for explanations of decisions relating to Attendance Allowance is three days.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action his Department took in recognition of energy efficiency week. [11519]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 30 October 2001, Official Report, column 592W.
  314W
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 6 November 2001:The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many appeals against decisions on attendance allowance have been made in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how many have been (a) allowed (b) dismissed and (c) are awaiting a decision.
  The information is in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  The Department for Work and Pensions is actively involved in an overall cross-government programme designed to lessen the impact of our operations on the environment. We are currently working with our estates and service partners, Land Securities Trillium, to implement a number of capital investment projects designed to improve energy efficiency throughout the estate. Further to this, the Department is in the process of developing an overarching environmental awareness campaign for staff, that will include energy efficiency good practice while at work and links will be promoted with the work of the Energy Savings Trust.

  Medical Assessments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of C grade medical reports fail to meet his Department's standards by(a) 10 per cent. and (b) five per cent. broken down by disability benefit centre in each of the last three years. [11903]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Medical quality targets were set in June 2000, in the Government's response to the Social Security Committee report on medical services. The target in relation to C grade medical reports was: within six months to reduce the proportion of C grade reports by 10 per cent.; and within one year to reduce the proportion of C grade reports across all benefits to less than 5 per cent.

  Performance against the target is monitored at national and at contract package level. All contract package areas (north, south-east, and south-west) have met both the six month and the one year target.
  315W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the rate of medical examinations by SEMA is in respect of(a) incapacity and (b) disability benefits. [11901]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the 12 months ending 31 September 2001, there were 428,232 IB examinations and 235,549 DLA/AA examinations carried out.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passports (Confiscation)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will remove the passports of individuals who have expressed an intention to go to(a) Afghanistan and (b) Pakistan to fight against British or US armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [8655]

  Angela Eagle
  The courts have distinct statutory powers to order the surrender of passports belonging to football hooligans and drug offenders but, in general, the power of the Secretary of State to refuse or withdraw passport facilities is limited to certain categories which have previously been announced in Parliament. These include:"in very rare cases a person whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest".

  I will carefully consider the individual circumstances of any cases which appear to fall into this category.

  Police Pensions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to fund police pensions over the next 10 years. [9974]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no plans to change the manner of funding of police pensions at present. However, we are aware of police authorities' concern over the increasing burden of the funding of pensions. The Home Office and Treasury will be keeping the situation under review.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 16 October: what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [10368]

  Mr. Denham
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Luxembourg on 16 October. The purpose of the Council was to consider key issues on the two main anti-terrorism instruments presented by the Commission at the special JHA Council on 20 September, both of which are scheduled for adoption at the JHA Council on 6–7 December.
  316W
  Framework Decision on European Arrest Warrant

  The principal issue considered was the intended scope of the warrant, in particular the abolition of dual criminality for offences covered by the framework decision.

  Member states expressed a range of views on dual criminality and on the way in which offences should be defined for the purpose of operating the warrant.

  The Council also noted the work in hand to identify the appropriate procedures for serving and enforcing the European arrest warrant.

  Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism

  The Council examined two aspects of the draft framework decision on combating terrorism: penalties and jurisdiction.

  A number of member states expressed difficulty over the Commission's proposal for common minimum/maximum penalties for those terrorist offences defined in the framework decision.

  On jurisdiction, member states expressed concern about possible conflicts of jurisdiction if extra-territorial jurisdiction within the European Union were provided for.

  The Presidency concluded that further work should be undertaken and that these issues should be discussed again at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 16 November, in order to meet the commitment to adoption in December.

  Police Numbers (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the chief constable on police numbers in Staffordshire. [10289]

  Mr. Denham
  I have not had any discussions with the chief constable about police numbers in Staffordshire.

  On 31 August, Staffordshire police had 2,212 officers, 83 more than in March 2001. The force had 935 civilian support staff at March 2001; this is an increase of 173 since March 1997 and 77 since March 2000.

  Under the crime fighting fund (CFF) recruitment initiative, Staffordshire police have been allocated a total of 146 additional recruits, over and above their existing recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003.

  In 2000–01, Staffordshire police recruited all 49 of their CFF allocation. The force expects to recruit all its second year CFF allocation of 51 in 2001–02. Staffordshire has been allocated a further 46 CFF recruits in 2002–03.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to collect data on the number of asylum seekers who have their asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance, broken down by the reason for non-compliance. [10722]

  Angela Eagle
  Data are collected centrally and published showing the number of applications refused on non-compliance grounds as a whole. This is not broken down into specific reasons for non-compliance. This information could be obtained only at a disproportionate
  317W
  cost. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the main reasons for refusing an asylum claim on non-compliance grounds are:

  1. Failure to attain the screening interview;

  2.Failure to return or late return of the statement of evidence form (SEF):

  3.Failure to attend or late attendance at an asylum interview.

  Police Numbers (Cheshire)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) police constables there were in the Cheshire constabulary in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001. [11074]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been provided by the chief constable of Cheshire constabulary and is set out in the table.

  Year

  Police Officers

  Constables

  31 March 1997

  2,046

  1,590

  31 March 2001

  2,002

  1,533

  30 September 2001

  2,058

  1,575

  Under the crime fighting fund (CFF) recruitment initiative, Cheshire police have been allocated a total of 147 additional recruits, over and above their existing recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. Cheshire police recruited 21 of its CFF allocation in 2000–01.

  Cheshire constabulary employed 735 civilian staff in March 1997 and 833 in March 2001.

  Motorcycle Theft
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to target motorcycle theft. [11659]

  Mr. Denham
  Motorcycle theft is included within the national target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the five year period April 1999 to March 2004.

  The National Criminal Intelligence Service has received additional Government funding to run a project aimed at tackling organised motorcycle theft. Crime prevention messages specifically aimed at motorcyclists have been included in the current phase of the national vehicle crime reduction communications campaign. Local authorities now have powers to provide secure parking for motorcycles under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 (as amended). The Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 provides for statutory regulation of the motor salvage industry which will help prevent vehicles, including motorcycles, from being stolen to be broken up for spare parts or "rung" (ie taking on the identities of vehicles which have been written off in accidents).

  Cannabis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average cost of arresting and charging people for cannabis possession in the last 12 months. [11874]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It can take on average three hours of a police officer's time to arrest and charge a person for possession of cannabis. There were 81,380 cannabis 318W
  possession offences in 1999. A police constable's basic salary cost in England and Wales falls within the range of £12 to £14 per hour, therefore the annual cost is in the region of £2,929,680 to £3,417,960.

  In assessing the costs, it is important to remember that arrests for cannabis possession may be incidental to other police action.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government are taking to bring to justice people who traffic in human beings; and in what such action they are participating on an EU-wide basis. [12074]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to ensuring that strong measures are in place to penalise people who traffic in human beings. We have signed the trafficking protocol to the United Nations convention on transnational organised crime, which requires the specific criminalisation of trafficking in human beings.

  The Government are currently negotiating a framework decision, which is a binding European Union instrument and requires the criminalisation of trafficking in human beings for the purposes of exploiting their labour and services or for sexual exploitation. Under its provisions, the United Kingdom will be required to have implemented the instrument within two years of its adoption.

  A decision will be made on how best to implement the UN and EU agreements after the EU framework decision has been adopted. We will also take account of the outcome of the consultation exercise on "Setting the Boundaries", the report of the sex offences review which made recommendations for a new offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation.

  Last year we set up Project Reflex, a multi-agency task force chaired by the National Crime Squad, to co-ordinate anti-trafficking operations and develop the intelligence and strategic planning to underpin them. It is now well established and has resulted in some major successes involving partners overseas. The most recent has been Operation Franc in early June, which led to arrests in the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Germany.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the(a) local authorities which have successfully applied for antisocial behaviour orders, (b) local authorities which have only unsuccessfully applied for antisocial behaviour orders and (c) local authorities which have not applied for any antisocial behaviour orders; and if he will identify under what political control each authority operates; [12030]

  (2) how many applications for antisocial behaviour orders have been made by (a) local authorities and (b) the police; and how those applications were disposed of and with what outcomes. [12029]

  Mr. Denham
  There is known to have been some under-recording of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in a few police force areas. With the co-operation of Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) we are
  319W
  therefore undertaking a one-off reconciliation exercise to establish any differences, between the numbers of ASBOs known to the police and the data from court returns.

  The data should be available in November and I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals against antisocial behaviour orders have been made; and with what outcomes. [12028]

  Mr. Denham
  Information collected centrally on antisocial behaviour orders does not include details of those cases in which an appeal has been lodged.

  Crimestoppers
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to support voluntary organisations involved in crime prevention, with particular reference to Crimestoppers. [12015]

  Mr. Denham
  My Department is constantly looking at ways to support voluntary organisations involved in crime prevention. Crimestoppers has submitted a request for support which is currently being considered.

  Experience Corps Initiative
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for members of the National Experience Corps to lead sport and exercise sessions for older people. [12228]

  Angela Eagle
  The experience corps initiative aims to encourage more people aged 50 and over to become or to remain active in their local communities. Although there are no specific plans in relation to encouraging older people to engage in sport and exercise sessions, it is hoped that those who volunteer through the experience corps will be able to participate in a wide range of volunteering opportunities.

  The Government recognise the importance of sport and exercise activities for older people and that is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has set up a working group of officials and representatives from other key bodies to explore ways of encouraging and facilitating physical activity for older people.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will revise the income supplements provided to police officers in Sussex, based on an analysis of comparative costs of living in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. [12038]

  Mr. Denham
  In February this year, the police negotiating board (PNB)) reached agreement on a recommendation to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that officers in eight south-east police forces appointed after 1 September 1994 and not in receipt of housing allowance should receive a new allowance. The PNB recommended that qualifying officers in Kent and Surrey should receive an allowance of £2,000 a year and qualifying officers in Sussex should receive 1,000 a year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary approved the recommendation of the PNB.
  320W
  The PNB is the statutory negotiating body for police pay and conditions of service, with representatives from all the main police organisations, including the Police Federations, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. It would be for the PNB in the first instance to consider whether the allowance awarded to qualifying officers in Sussex should be revised.

  Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reassess the recommendations of the Police Foundation report on drug use. [12061]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No. The Government published their response to the report of the independent inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by the Police Foundation in February 2001. We welcomed the inquiry's report and its contribution to the on-going process of assessing the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's drugs laws and policies.

  The Government supported 24 of the inquiry's 81 recommendations, rejected 37 and referred the remaining 20 recommendations for further consideration by relevant Government Departments and agencies. There is no intention to undertake a further review of the inquiry's recommendations.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on the levels of consumption of(a) heroin, (b) cocaine and (c) cannabis; [12058]

  (2) if his Department has recently considered the merits of (a) legalising and (b) decriminalising the use of illegal drugs. [12171]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There has been no change in Government policy on legalising or decriminalising illegal drugs. Our drugs laws deter experimentation, a point borne out by public opinion surveys. For example 30 per cent. of adults questioned by MORI for the Police Foundation inquiry cited illegality as the main reason for not taking drugs. Moreover, the findings of the 1998–99 youth lifestyle survey revealed that 64 per cent. of respondents who had never taken cannabis had not done so because it is against the law.

  The Home Secretary has asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the arguments for reclassifying cannabis from class B to class C. In giving evidence the Home Secretary said that he was not in favour of either legalisation or decriminalisation.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made for the(a) possession and (b) supply of (i) heroin, (ii) cocaine and (iii) cannabis in each of the past five years. [12057]

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

  Information taken from the Home Office Court proceedings database showing the number of persons proceeded against for the (a) possession, (b) supply and (c) possession with intent to supply (i) heroin, (ii) cocaine and (iii) cannabis in England and Wales during the period 1996 to 2000 is given in the table.
  321W

  Persons proceeded against in the magistrates courts for the given offences, England and Wales, 1996–2000

  Offence

  Principal statute

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Having possession of a controlled drug

  Heroin

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Sec. 5(2)

  2,653

  3,698

  4,819

  5,236

  5,510

  Cocaine

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Sec. 5(2)

  840

  1,194

  1,829

  2,268

  2,048

  Cannabis

  Ibid as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Sec. 157 Sch. 8 part II

  14,857

  18,940

  24,395

  24,322

  22,303

  Supplying or offering (or being concerned in) to supply a controlled drug

  Heroin

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Sec. 4(3)

  933

  1,304

  1,486

  1,869

  1,643

  Cocaine

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Sec. 4(3)

  287

  342

  423

  487

  437

  Cannabis

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Sec. 4(3)

  1,559

  1,788

  1,830

  1,580

  1,001

  Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply

  Heroin

  Misuse of Drugs Act Sec. 5(3)

  1,040

  1,265

  1,411

  1,483

  1,488

  Cocaine

  Misuse of Drugs Act Sec. 5(3)

  370

  471

  502

  578

  664

  Cannabis

  Misuse of Drugs Act Sec. 5(3)

  2,765

  3,275

  3,223

  2,917

  2,194

  Note:

  Data are given on a principal offence basis

  Centralised Custody Centres
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what efficiency savings have been achieved, broken down by police force area, through the introduction of centralised custody centres; [12035]

  (2) which police forces have moved to a system of centralised custody centres; [12036]

  (3) what the average waiting times at each custody centre for processing a case were for the latest month for which figures are available. [12033]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Police Establishment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers within the City of London there were(a) in May 1997 and (b) for the latest month for which figures are available. [12406]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The City of London police had 859 police officers on 31 March 1997 and 705 police officers on 2 November 2001.

  The force employed 347 civilian support staff in March 1997 and 223 in March 2001.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy on national identity cards is; and if he will make a statement. [12873]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have no plans to introduce a national identity card scheme as part of its response to the atrocities in the United States on 11 September.

  However, the policy is kept under review and the Government are considering whether a universal card which allowed people to prove their identity more easily and provided a simple way to access a range of public services would be beneficial. Such an entitlement card scheme could also help to combat illegal working which disproportionately affects the poorer sections of our society by undercutting the minimum wage and
  322W
  encouraging unscrupulous employers. It could also reduce fraud against individuals, public services and the private sector.

  The introduction of an entitlement card would be a major step and the Government would not proceed without consulting widely and considering all the views expressed very carefully.

  Vandalism Costs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collates on the annual cost of vandalism, broken down by local authority. [13103]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: In Home Office statistics, vandalism is categorised as criminal damage. We have estimates of the economic cost of criminal damage in England and Wales. However, we do not currently estimate the annual cost of criminal damage broken down by local authority.

  The most recent figure of the cost of criminal damage was published in a report in December 2000. "The economic and social cost of crime" (Home Office Research Study 217). This estimated the total cost of criminal damage in England and Wales in 1999–2000 to be £4.1 billion. This represents 7 per cent. of the total economic cost of crime.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to local authorities on the case of private security firms; and if he will make a statement. [12910]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: We do not routinely issue guidance on this subject. There is, however, an extant piece of advice (Home Office Circular 60/1995) on the subject of local authority registration of door supervisors.

  The Private Security Industry Act 2001 sets out the Government's current framework for the regulation of the private security industry in England and Wales. Consultations with local authorities will be essential with regard to those aspects of the Act relating to the licensing of door supervisors.

  Special Constables (Sussex)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in (i) Sussex police and (ii) nationally in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000. [11805]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The number of serving special constables in England and Wales and the number of specials serving in Sussex police from 30 September 1997 to 30 September 2000 are set out in the table:

  Year

  Total strength1

  Strength in Sussex

  1997

  19,163

  465

  1998

  17,296

  415

  1999

  15,727

  377

  2000

  13,487

  317

  1 England and Wales

  Note:

  Figures provided by Research Statistics and Development

  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and we are looking at radical improvements in their management, welfare and deployment as part of the police reform process.

  Asylum Support
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are receiving(a) accommodation and subsistence support and (b) subsistence support only from the national asylum support service. [13053]

  Angela Eagle
  As at the end of July 2001, the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in national asylum support service (NASS) accommodation was 28,8101,2 A further 18,5201,2 asylum seekers (including dependants) were receiving voucher only support from NASS.
  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 10.
  2 Cases which have had their support ceased are excluded from these figures.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum-seekers and dependants have been dispersed to each of the NASS designated dispersal areas since(a) 1 April 2001 and (b) 3 April 2000. [13054]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not currently available in the form requested.

  The available information on dispersed asylum seekers is in the table. The table shows the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in the national asylum support service (NASS) accommodation in each cluster area as at the end of July 2001.

  Number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation by cluster area as at the end of July 20011,2

  Region/area

  Number

  East Midlands

  Derby

  110

  Leicester

  640

  Nottingham

  880

  Total

  1,630

  324W

  Number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation by cluster area as at the end of July 20011,2

  Region/area

  Number

  East of England

  Ipswich

  30

  Peterborough

  180

  Total

  200

  Greater London

  Disbenefited3

  200

  London

  480

  Total

  680

  North East

  Darlington

  30

  Gateshead

  530

  Hartlepool

  50

  Middlesbrough

  370

  Newcastle

  1,410

  North Tyneside

  340

  Redcar and Cleveland

  300

  South Tyneside

  130

  Stockton-on-Tees

  240

  Sunderland

  830

  Total

  4,240

  North West

  Blackburn

  430

  Bolton4

  590

  Burnley

  130

  Bury4

  160

  Disbenefited3

  *

  Liverpool

  1,620

  Manchester

  1,880

  Nelson

  210

  Oldham4

  160

  Rochdale4

  230

  Salford4

  250

  Stockport4

  70

  Tameside4

  60

  Trafford4

  50

  Wigan

  360

  Total

  6,190

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  40

  Other

  10

  Total

  50

  Scotland

  Glasgow

  3,890

  Total

  3,890

  South Central

  Bournemouth

  *

  Brighton and Hove

  40

  Disbenefited3

  340

  Hastings and St. Leonards

  210

  Portsmouth

  100

  Total

  390

  South West

  Bristol

  130

  Disbenefited3

  10

  Exeter

  40

  Plymouth

  360

  Total

  540

  325W

  Number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation by cluster area as at the end of July 20011,2

  Region/area

  Number

  Wales

  Cardiff

  330

  Swansea

  10

  Wrexham

  30

  Total

  370

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,980

  Coventry

  840

  Disbenefited3

  10

  Dudley

  160

  Sandwell

  120

  Solihull

  60

  Stoke-on-Trent

  340

  Walsall

  210

  Wolverhampton

  690

  Total

  4,410

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  160

  Bradford

  1,370

  Disbenefited3

  *

  Doncaster

  590

  Grimsby

  80

  Halifax

  220

  Hull

  960

  Kirklees

  390

  Number of females detained on remand and under sentence since 1 April 1997 by month1,2

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Remand

  Sentenced

  January

  —

  —

  650

  2,205

  778

  2,397

  730

  2,489

  692

  2,624

  February

  —

  —

  693

  2,311

  781

  2,427

  740

  2,590

  686

  2,749

  March

  —

  —

  698

  2,372

  707

  2,435

  716

  2,659

  677

  2,849

  April

  592

  1,992

  717

  2,371

  730

  2,411

  675

  2,620

  702

  2,848

  May

  560

  2,044

  694

  2,385

  741

  2,451

  701

  2,592

  746

  2,895

  June

  587

  2,066

  735

  2,367

  752

  2,436

  669

  2,666

  773

  2,899

  July

  618

  2,105

  721

  2,445

  757

  2,481

  724

  2,692

  820

  2,936

  August

  628

  2,113

  704

  2,440

  806

  2,504

  709

  2,712

  846

  2,978

  September

  630

  2,146

  714

  2,430

  783

  2,539

  685

  2,689

  860

  3,060

  October

  625

  2,152

  694

  2,432

  788

  2,582

  726

  2,681

  —

  —

  November

  671

  2,196

  748

  2,441

  742

  2,589

  731

  2,627

  —

  —

  December

  589

  2,158

  681

  2,364

  614

  2,447

  604

  2,515

  —

  —

  1 All figures are as the last day of the month

  2 Figures exclude civil prisoners

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish guidance on the housing and care of ferrets and gerbils in breeding and supplying establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [13591]

  Angela Eagle
  I have today laid before Parliament a draft supplement to the code of practice for the housing and care of animals in designated breeding and supplying establishments. The draft sets standards for the housing and care of ferrets and gerbils in designated breeding and supply establishments, and is a consequence of the species concerned being added to the list in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (animals which can only be obtained from designated
  326W

  Number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation by cluster area as at the end of July 20011,2

  Region/area

  Number

  Leeds

  910

  Rotherham

  370

  Sheffield

  1,040

  Wakefield

  140

  Total

  6,230

  Overall total

  28,810

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. * indicates a number between one and four. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2 Figures exclude cases where the asylum seekers support has been ceased.

  3 Disbenefited cases are cases which were previously supported by social services and after an initial decision on their asylum application have been transferred onto NASS support.

  4 Greater Manchester

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners were detained(a) on remand and (b) following sentence on the 1st of each month since May 1997. [11640]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of females in prisons in England and Wales in each month since 30 April 1997 is shown in the table. Figures are available only for the last day of the month.

  sources). The draft has been produced and laid under section 21 of the Act and is subject to the negative resolution procedure. Copies have been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Land Registry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what percentage of the total land area of Great Britain is not registered; and when he expects all land to be registered. [12553]

  Mr. Wills
  Information relating to the amount of land that is either registered or unregistered in Great Britain is not collected centrally. In England and Wales, land
  327W
  registration is compulsory on sale and on most other transactions affecting unregistered land. Over 18 million titles are already registered out of an estimated 23 million. The Land Registration Bill currently before Parliament is expected to lead to a substantial increase in voluntary applications for first registration and in registration of leasehold interests. The Law Commission and HM Land Registry have recommended that ways in which all remaining land with unregistered title in England and Wales might be brought on to the register should be re-examined five years after the Bill is implemented. The Government are currently considering that recommendation.

  Islamic Marriages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make it her policy to make Islamic marriages undertaken by UK citizens abroad registerable in the UK upon the return home of either party to the marriage. [12400]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The recognition in the UK of a marriage which has taken place overseas can be determined only by a court. I understand, however, that generally such marriages would be recognised here as valid provided that they complied with the law of the country where they took place and the couple had the legal capacity to marry each other.

  There is currently no provision in law for marriages which take place outside the UK to be registered in this country. But, under the Foreign Marriage Order 1970, certificates of marriage may be lodged with the Registrar General on receipt from the local consular office of non-Commonwealth countries. However, if the couple are already validly married to each other, there would be no need for the marriage to be registered again in this country.

  Census Information
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are being made for the general public to view 1901 Census information. [12379]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The general public will be able to view the 1901 census in two ways. First, online over the internet at www.census.pro.gov.uk. This innovation will greatly increase ease of access and is expected to 328W
  attract a wider range of users. Secondly, as with earlier census records, it will be available on microfiche at local record offices and libraries and a full set of fiche for England and Wales will be available at the Public Record Office at Kew.

  District Judges
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many district judges (magistrates courts) sit in England and Wales, broken down by county; and what plans he has to increase this number. [12386]

  Mr. Wills
  The table shows where stipendiary magistrates (now district judges (magistrates courts)) are based, county by county. London includes the senior district judge and her deputy. A competition is under way to fill the following vacancies included in the figures—two in London, one in Greater Manchester, one in Middlesex, one in Nottinghamshire, one in South Yorkshire and one in West Yorkshire. The Government are considering Lord Justice Auld's recommendations which may have an impact on the number of these appointments required.

  District judges (magistrates courts) district bench by county

  County

  Number

  Bristol

  1

  Cheshire

  1

  Cleveland

  1

  Derbyshire

  2

  Devon

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Essex

  1

  Greater Manchester

  5

  Hampshire

  3

  Humberside

  1

  Leicestershire

  2

  London

  48

  Merseyside

  5

  Middlesex

  3

  >Norfolk

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  Shropshire

  1

  South Wales

  3

  South Yorkshire

  5

  Staffordshire

  1

  Sussex

  2

  West Midlands

  10

  West Yorkshire

  5

  Total

  106

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.

Livestock Auctions
Lord Geraintasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether livestock auctions will be reopened this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, some livestock auction markets have recently reopened in Scotland, where the last confirmed case of foot and mouth disease was on 30th May. In England and Wales, where the last confirmed cases were on 30th September and 12th August respectively, the Government have said that they will consider whether markets could be reopened in the new year, subject to continuing progress with disease eradication.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. However, does he agree that the public are entitled to a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic so that consumers and producers may be told the truth? Nothing less will suffice.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not know how many times I must explain the Government's position on this matter. There will be a full, open and independent inquiry both into the Government's handling of the disease, with recommendations on its future handling, and into the science of the disease. Members of the public are entitled to put evidence to the inquiry and are entitled to publish that evidence should they so wish. I believe that a full public inquiry in strict terms—run on a quasi-judicial basis and lasting a substantial amount of time with people looking over their shoulders to see whether litigation will become a problem—is less likely to achieve the truth which the noble Lord seeks than will an inquiry of the type to which the Government are committed. The handling inquiry under Dr Iain Anderson will begin once we are in sight of the end of the disease. The scientific inquiry has started.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as the wife of a farmer with a small flock of sheep and as chairman of Honest Food. Noble Lords will be aware that last year Honest Food carried out a report on the meat business. One point that we raised was the lack of small abattoirs in convenient places. Various other reports on foot and mouth disease have recently agreed with that point, saying that the long distances that lambs are carried is not beneficial to them. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what action he is
196
taking to get small abattoirs out of mothballs and back into action again so that sheep do not have to be carried on huge journeys in order to be slaughtered.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the situation is slightly more complex than the noble Countess indicates. It is not clear whether the spread of the disease was proportionate to the distance animals were moved or proportionate to the number of movements. Nevertheless, there may be other reasons why one would wish to encourage more local movements and, therefore, more local abattoirs. But, taken on aggregate, capacity in the abattoir sector is still substantially too high. Therefore, the situation is not clear. However, the Government want to encourage small and medium-sized abattoirs. The Food Standards Agency has been given £8.7 million for the next three years precisely for that purpose and to try to reduce the costs to small abattoir operators.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, given the present situation in relation to foot and mouth and, of course, the history of the disease, what is the assessment of the risks involved in reopening the markets?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are currently assessing the risk at this stage of the disease. While the disease was still live—of course, we are not yet clear of it—it was evident that there was a risk in opening markets. The highest risk of all, and the highest incidence of transfer of the disease, came from the mingling of animals in live markets. Indeed, if I were allowed visual aids, I could demonstrate to the House the way in which the disease spread, in particular from Longtown market but also from other markets, during its early stages. Therefore, we are very wary of reopening markets. Nevertheless, it appears that the risk of opening cattle markets is beginning to diminish substantially, and I hope that those markets will reopen early in the new year. The risk in relation to sheep is slightly greater but, again, as I said in my first Answer, we are keeping that under review.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I understand that the Government have a scheme to pay £10 a head for hill lambs which the farmers cannot sell. Does the Minister consider that £10 a head is a fair price?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the answer lies in the noble Lord's question. That scheme is intended to avoid welfare problems on the hills for farmers who cannot otherwise dispose of their animals. The fact is that, in that situation, the market price is nil. Therefore, the Government's provision of a £10 fee and of the costs of transportation and disposal is, I believe, fair.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the price is nil? Surely that is his fault.
Noble LordsOrder!
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further. First, I remind the House of my

197
family's farming interest. The opening of livestock markets will, indeed, be welcome news. I am sure that the Minister agrees that 80 to 90 per cent of store animals are sold through the livestock market rather than by modern technology. My understanding—it is only my understanding—is that farmers will now be precluded from working within the livestock market per se. Why has that rule been brought in? Obviously farmers have great experience of handling, and dealing with, livestock. It seems bizarre that, when the Government are asking farmers to diversify in order to obtain extra income, they will apparently now be precluded from operating within livestock markets.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the figures quoted by the noble Baroness are slightly higher than the figures that I have in terms of the number of cattle. Even in relation to store cattle, the figure is 70 to 80 per cent rather than 80 to 90 per cent. Nevertheless, the farmers' method of trading is obviously important. When the markets are reopened, they will be subject to greater biosecurity precautions than has previously been the case. Indeed, some of the restrictions on access apply in the Scottish markets that have been reopened, mainly in relation to cattle but now also in relation to sheep. The precise rules for reopening English and Welsh markets have not yet been decided. Therefore, the issue of who can enter the confined areas has yet to be determined.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, does the Minister agree that things have been particularly difficult for people with breeding stocks because markets have been closed? Will he try to help farmers who have too much breeding stock left on their farms? Does he agree that the fact that the light lamb scheme of £ 10 has now closed makes it very difficult for people with light lambs?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness's comments on the light lamb scheme are true, but there is still a £10 fee for most sheep that are disposed of through the welfare disposal scheme. It is certainly true that some flocks are locked up and that there is therefore some over-stocking. However, the costs from foot and mouth apply to all sorts of businesses throughout rural areas. It is not the Government's intention to pay compensation to all the businesses that have suffered. If we went down that road, the Government would become the insurer of last resort, which is not our intention or policy.

Flood Defences
2.44 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to ensure that local authorities, in areas where there were floods in 2000, are taking all possible steps to protect towns and villages from similar disasters this winter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Environment Agency is primarily responsible for providing flood defences and
198
flood warnings but local authorities also have a crucial role in providing funding and in leading the response to flooding emergencies.
Flood defences that were damaged last year have been reinstated so that communities are now at least as well defended as they were before the floods, and in many cases are better defended. Where appropriate, new flood defence schemes are being developed, although that often requires longer-term planning.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that for areas such as those that are close to me in East Sussex—I fortunately live half way up Mount Harry, but our neighbouring towns of Lewes, Uckfield and Robertsbridge were seriously flooded last year—very little has happened during the past year in terms of long-term improvements? In Lewes, for example, there is a greater availability of sandbags but of nothing else.
The Minister referred to the Environment Agency. Is he aware that it calculated that the cost simply of maintaining flood defences in Sussex at their present standards was £55 million? However, the Government have made available for the maintenance of land and flood defences only £51 million, and that sum has to be spread throughout the country and over four years. Is there not a huge potential problem here that the Government have yet to recognise? If it is not recognised, it will make the long-term capital investment problems of Railtrack seem like a flea bite.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is not going to tempt me into discussing the railway system. On flood defences, I do not quite recognise his figures. In total, via the SSA, well over £400 million is being allocated on an annual basis and, in terms of capital grants, the provision by DEFRA has increased from £66 million to £114 million over the coming two years. Those are significant increases. However, that is not to minimise the problem. In the case of Lewes, the problem is particularly complex because there are substantial heritage considerations. As yet, the full scheme that will be needed to defend Lewes from all eventualities relating to flooding has not been developed because of those complications. Only temporary measures have been established. There are several other examples that are complicated in that way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the most important consideration, in terms of reducing the flooding of rivers, is to ensure that the outflow parts of rivers are wide and deep enough to take an increased flow of water and that the river authorities are responsible for that? Will he bear that in mind and give such instruction and help to the river authorities as may be necessary?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly true that the outlets and estuaries—and the continuous dredging thereof—are an important part of total flood management. In most cases, that responsibility rests with the Environment Agency, which has overall responsibility for the management of floods in the

199
total river system. It is therefore already clearly its main remit to prioritise the measures that are necessary in a particular flood system. That includes dealing with outlets.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister explain what changes have been made to planning policy guidance since last year's floods to stop continued building on flood plains? I also refer to the use of surfaces that soak up water, as opposed to those that cause run-off into drains and hence into rivers.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the development dimension, planning guidance has been altered so that it recommends that planning authorities should restrict more substantially developments on vulnerable flood plains and those that use water or transfer water as a result of being close to the main river system. That has been tightened up. It is up to individual planning authorities, when considering particular planning applications, to bear those matters in mind. Clearly, some planning decisions were taken in the past that have aggravated the problem substantially in some areas.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the Environment Agency has told many areas that protective measures are too expensive. Is that really the Government's thinking? Many householders and businesses are now being denied insurance cover because of the high risk of flooding. Do the Government acknowledge that that will pose a real threat to the economic survival of those vulnerable locations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the threat of flooding is pretty widespread. The Government and local authorities have to prioritise those areas in which the defences will be most effective. Therefore, by definition, other areas may have a lower priority. As I said, there has been an increase of about 70 per cent in the capital expenditure for flood defences from DEFRA and an increase in the money that is spent by local authorities in that area. Some economic problems were, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, aggravated by inappropriate development, which I hope planning authorities will in future avoid.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can give me comfort in relation to the area of the Ouse from Boroughbridge to York. As I suspect the noble Lord knows, the old, historic town of York is one of the country's main tourist centres. Are the Government aware that year after year the foundations of some of the lovely historic buildings are becoming more and more endangered and that such damage may be experienced in other parts of the town that have not yet been hit by floods? Can the Minister give me any comfort in that regard?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can give a degree of comfort. Clearly the floods in the Ouse area and in York over the past years have been substantial, but some improvements have been made along the river
200
and in York itself. Heritage buildings cannot be defended from floods in the same way as modern housing. The town of Lewes has the same problem. It is a substantial problem and will require a long-term developed plan in order to minimise the risk to buildings in York.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome the extra sums that the Minister has announced are to be allocated to flood defence. Can he give the House a guarantee that there will be no underspend on such funds?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to government expenditure, we shall endeavour to spend up to the limits. Clearly, the money that is dealt with by the local authorities will go via the SSA. Local authorities have to establish priorities for flood defences and for other pressures on their budgets. Therefore, I cannot give that absolute guarantee. As I believe the Liberal Democrat Benches constantly emphasise in other circumstances, some discretion is required by local authorities in this matter.

Asylum Seekers: Sangatte Centre
2.52 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smithasked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the European Union and the French concerning the asylum seekers who have passed through Sangatte attempting to enter the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the United Kingdom is actively involved in discussions with European partners about the European Union's response to illegal immigration and asylum issues. The Sangatte centre has not specifically been discussed at European Union level. But Ministers and officials have regular bilateral discussions with their French counterparts about a range of issues, including Sangatte. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary met Interior Minister Vaillant in Paris on 12th September to discuss a variety of cross-Channel issues, including Sangatte.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, asylum matters within the European Union are regulated by the Dublin Convention of 1990. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have considered using Article 17 of that convention to bring about change? The article states:
"If a Member State experiences major difficulties as a result of a substantial change in the circumstances obtaining on conclusion of this Convention, the State in question may bring the matter before the Committee"—
that is a committee consisting of representatives of every government within the Community—
"… so that the latter may put to the Member States measures to deal with the situation or adopt such revisions or amendments to this Convention as appear necessary"
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Dublin Convention does not work. It is a sham. There is no sense in pretending that it works. That is why it is to be replaced with Dublin II. The target date for that is 2004. The present system simply does not work. I understand that evaluation by the Commission itself showed that less than 5 per cent of the total of asylum applications made in the whole of the European Union were dealt with through the existing Dublin mechanism. The time limits do not work.
Simply because someone gets off a train from France, that is not proof that France was the member state that should have looked after him in the first place. That is a real problem and to make the system work we need to reform the Dublin Convention.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that no one condones illegal immigration or asylum seekers coming here without the appropriate means by which they can enter the country legally? Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any way by which persons who suffer persecution can enter the United Kingdom through legal means? Is it beyond the scope of the European countries to try to harmonise the policy in that respect? More importantly, does the fact that there is a camp at Sangatte looking after the welfare of asylum seekers make the least bit of difference to people who, for fear of persecution, want to try to get to other countries?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is inviting me to rewrite the 1951 convention which I cannot do. First, the application for asylum has to be made in-country; it cannot be made outside a country. Not everyone who travels here travels illegally, but the majority of the problems are caused by those who travel illegally.
Daily there is an average of 800 people living in the Red Cross warehouse—that is what it is—in Sangatte. If they are in genuine fear of persecution as a result of well-founded beliefs, they can apply for asylum in France. Basically, they are not asylum seekers; they are applying to come to Britain. If they genuinely feared persecution, they could apply to stay in France, which is a safe country. There is no problem in France. That is an issue to be looked at in relation to Sangatte.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, at the moment one Secretary of State is in Spain trying to recruit 1,000 doctors, and yet we do not have in place the talked-about green card scheme that will enable the people whom we would welcome to come here as economic migrants. Can the Minister tell the House of the progress that is being made across the European Union to have a common system to deal with asylum applications?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the latter part of that question refers to the reform of the Dublin Convention. The answer to the first part of the question was in a Statement made to the House on 29th October, in which we said that in January we shall publish a White Paper on asylum and immigration.
202
That will include proposals for reform of the system including a system of managed migration. It will be a series of joined-up systems. At the moment there are many ways in which people can come to this country, but no one would call it a system of managed migration. We shall put that forward in the White Paper in January. If legislation is required, we have already said that we shall bring forward an asylum and immigration Bill in the early spring.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister understand that there is no such thing as an absolutely safe country? The only question is whether the country is safe for that particular applicant. If the applicant concerned is a victim of non-state persecution, such as many of those who have left Northern Ireland for fear of terrorism, France is not a safe country.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, most people who arrive here via Sangatte do not claim non-state persecution; they claim state persecution. I accept that France and Germany take a different view of non-state persecution compared with other European Union members. Both in France and in Germany there is movement to go with the majority and to change their policies. That is an important part of the negotiations that will have to take place on Dublin II. The issue of non-state persecution is not the primary claim made by people who arrive here from Sangatte.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister explain the green card system that will commence next January? At least a year ago I had a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, saying that such a system would start in January last year. She did not use the phrase "green card", but it was to be a special form of application for people whom we wanted to come and work in this country.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that I have not confused the House inadvertently. I did not say that the green card or a system of managed migration would start in January. The Government will produce a White Paper with plans for systems of managed migration, some of which, I suspect, will require primary legislation. Therefore, we shall have to go through the legislative process.
On the second part of the question, I suspect that the noble Baroness was referring to the announcement that was made two Novembers ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the scheme for highly qualified people—those with about five PhDs or something like that. We are ready to implement such a scheme, but it is only part of a managed migration programme. We delayed it on the assumption that we would before now be able to put forward full proposals. However, that matter is now being dealt with separately. A date has been fixed, which I am afraid I have forgotten, for the start of the scheme relating to highly qualified people which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme
3.1 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Brokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced reductions in compensation paid to farmers for animals which due to movement restriction will have to be destroyed because of the lack of food and shelter during the coming winter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme is intended to provide a disposal route for animals whose welfare has been compromised by the foot and mouth movement restrictions. It is preferable for those animals to be marketed for further fattening or human consumption, and in most parts of the country that is now possible. The scheme is not intended to form an alternative market but to provide a temporary source of income to address the welfare problems caused by these restrictions. The payment rates are kept under review to make sure that they do not represent an alternative to normal market rates. I recently announced new rates applicable from 30th October. Those reflect the trends in current market prices, which in most cases have been downwards.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Can the Minister confirm that it is only because of the Government's foot and mouth restrictions that these farmers are unable to market their animals? In that case, is it not somewhat mean-spirited of the Government suddenly to announce a savage reduction in compensation, particularly as the scheme has only six months to run? Will the noble Lord reconsider that decision?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no. The rates as announced in the summer approximated to 70 per cent of market value for the temporary period while the restrictions still applied to a large part of the country. First, only a very small part of the country is now affected by those substantial restrictions; and, secondly, market prices have moved, in most cases downwards. In the case of breeding ewes, where the rates have moved upwards, we have raised the amount. As for being mean-spirited, your Lordships should know that the cost of compensation under this scheme, which is basically a safety net, is over £200 million. The total cost including disposal is more than twice that figure. I do not believe that that is mean-spirited by any stretch of the imagination.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has just said. I remind the House of my family's farming interest. But the cuts are very drastic: from £18 to £10 for culled ewes; £25 to £10 for all lamb; £700 to £350 for cows and heifers; and a new category for breeding ewes. Those are not minor but major cuts. Will the Minister reflect that perhaps if the
204
Government had got to grips with the outbreak in the first place we would not find ourselves in this position today?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the various inquiries into this disease will undoubtedly show that there were some things that the Government could have done better, but their commitment and that of DEFRA's officials, in conjunction with the industry, to contain the spread of this disease was absolute throughout the epidemic. It is, therefore, wrong in any sense to ascribe to the Government the rapid spread of this disease. In many cases it was due to practices that had grown up within the farming trade, and were perfectly legal, which meant that the movement and mingling of animals spread the disease throughout the country much more rapidly than had ever been anticipated. As a result, there is a huge cost to the taxpayer in terms of compensation, administering the scheme and the safety net for livestock welfare disposal to which I have just referred. The total cost to the taxpayer of this epidemic will be over £2 billion. That is a tragedy for the farming industry and a huge cost to the taxpayer, but it is not the Government who caused this. The Government have had to pick up the bill and try to deal with the epidemic as far as possible.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will agree that one way in which the Government tried to give farmers a fair price for their produce was to ask the Office of Fair Trading to look into supermarket pricing. That resulted in the Government publishing last week a code for supermarkets. Can the Minister say why the Government have failed to do anything about a regulator for that code which means that there is no one to enforce it? Does the noble Lord believe that that is a gap which the Government should rectify?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this arose directly out of an OFT inquiry some months ago which produced a code of practice for the dominant supermarkets in their dealings with suppliers. I suspect that in the course of the deliberations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food the issue of relationships between supermarkets and their suppliers will be addressed again, and there may be other issues that we need to deal with in that context.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, notwithstanding the £2 billion of special payments made to agriculture arising from the disease, to put some of these complaints into perspective it should be borne in mind that the normal subsidy to agriculture exceeds the total that is received by the whole of British industry?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that that is a correct perspective, and certainly payments mainly via the common agricultural policy need to be borne in mind. The Government are committed to major reforms of the CAP which they hope to start to negotiate next year.

House of Lords Reform
3.8 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I apologise for rising before the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to raise one matter of considerable importance before he makes his Statement on the White Paper.
I am told that the White Paper is not available in the Vote Office. Obviously, that appears to be somewhat discourteous to noble Lords and will pose certain difficulties for those who wish to put questions. I am told the explanation is that it will not be made available until the Leader of the House of Commons rises to his feet at half-past three. If that be the explanation, that raises other very important issues. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can tell us what he can do to help us over this difficulty and ensure that nothing of this kind ever happens again. It is very discourteous to this House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, my understanding is that it is normal procedure.
A noble Lord: Yes—during your leadership.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am fortified by that helpful support. I have not intended the slightest discourtesy to this House. I shall make the Statement first and my right honourable friend Mr Cook will make it second. The last sentence of the first paragraph was to have informed your Lordships that the White Paper published by the Prime Minister would be available in the Printed Paper Office today at half-past three. I take the other implication of the noble Lord's question. If, at some later stage, one of your Lordships suggests to me that we should have a fairly prompt debate about this important matter, I shall do what I can to assist through the usual channels.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord invited a suggestion that we should have an early debate. I merely answer that invitation by making such a suggestion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with permission I should like to make a Statement on the Government's proposals for further reform of your Lordships' House. I need not read the next sentence.
These proposals form the second part of the two-stage reform that we promised when we legislated in 1999 to remove the automatic right of hereditary Peers to be Members of your Lordships' House. They will complete the process of creating a modern second Chamber to play its part in a Parliament fit for the 21st century. We believe that Parliament as a whole will be strengthened by these reforms.
The Government are very appreciative of the work done by the Royal Commission set up in 1999 to analyse the issues and put forward recommendations. The Government have consistently made clear that
206
they found much of the Royal Commission's report persuasive. As we promised in our manifesto, we have given our general support to the Royal Commission's recommendations and will seek to implement them in the most effective way possible.
Like the Royal Commission, we have taken as our starting point the role and functions of your Lordships' House as part of our overall constitutional settlement. We concluded that your Lordships' House should be: first, a revising and deliberative assembly not seeking to usurp the role of the House of Commons as the preeminent Chamber; secondly, that it should be composed of a membership appropriate to its revising and deliberative functions, and not duplicate or clone the Commons; and thirdly, that it should be political in approach, but not dominated by any one political party. Further, it should be representative of independent expertise and of the broader community in our country, but not to disrupt the delicate relationship—the continuing relationship—between elected Members of the Commons and their constituents.
Like the Royal Commission, our fundamental principle has been that reform should not undermine the position of the House of Commons. Our system of parliamentary democracy is built on the accountability of government to the House of Commons and through it to the people. To assume power, a government must command a majority in the House of Commons. To maintain power, they must sustain the confidence of that House. This constitutional framework, founded on the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, has provided Britain with effective democratic government and accountability, and few would wish to change it. It is vital that reform of this House does not upset that balance but rather that it strengthens the capacity of Parliament to legislate, to deliberate and to hold government to account, whichever government happen to be in power at that particular time.
Reform of your Lordships' House must, I suggest, satisfy one key condition. It must not alter the respective roles and authority of the two Chambers and their Members in a way that might or would obscure the line of authority and accountability that flows between the people and those they elect directly to form their government. Decisions on functions, on authority and on membership of this House should be consistent with those well-settled principles of our democracy.
The Government's proposals are these: the House of Lords should remain subject to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in discharging its functions. No group in society should in future have privileged hereditary access to this House. The 92 hereditary Peers who remained in the House under the transitional arrangements in the House of Lords Act will lose their right to sit in the House, although, like everyone else, they will be eligible for membership as appointed or elected Members.
The House of Lords' principal function should continue to be to consider and revise legislation; to scrutinise the executive; and to debate and report on

207
public issues. In carrying out these functions, we shall be looking for the House to make a distinctive contribution.
The primary legislative powers of the House, as circumscribed by the Parliament Acts, should remain unchanged. Its powers over secondary legislation would be changed from one of veto to one of delay, so that as with primary legislation, this House can require the House of Commons to think again when considering a statutory instrument. That was, as your Lordships well know, a recommendation of the Royal Commission.
Membership of the House should be separated from the peerage, which would continue as an honour. That was also a recommendation of the Royal Commission.
Political membership of the House should be broadly representative of the main parties' relative voting strengths as reflected in the previous general election. This means that it is the people, not the Government, as has been the case in the past, who will decide the political make-up of the House.
The size of the House should be capped, in statute, at the figure of 600. To allow an orderly transition from the present House, this cap will apply only after a period of 10 years from the passing of the Act.
The House should be largely nominated. There should be a significant minority of non-political members. We have proposed a figure of 120 for this element. The contribution made by the Cross-Bench Peers is a distinctive feature of the present House to which many people attach great importance. The Government are firm in their belief that that should be preserved. The Royal Commission recommended that there should be an elected element, specifically to represent the nations and regions within the UK. A majority of the Royal Commission was willing to support option B. That provided for 87 elected Members. We have proposed that the figure should be increased to 120.
There should be increased representation of women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. In order to assist with increasing the representation of women, at least 30 per cent of new appointments will have to be of women. At least 30 per cent will have to be of men. I think t hat I shall enjoy myself by waiting for the subsequent question. There will also be provision in relation to ethnic minority representation.
There should be a statutory independent appointments commission. It would be appointed by Her Majesty in response to an Address from this House. Its functions would be broadly threefold. First, it would manage the balance and size of the House, by deciding how many nominations each political party may make within the requirement, which I specified earlier, that political membership should reflect the share of the votes cast in the previous general election. Secondly, it would appoint the independent Members, using an open and transparent nominations process. Thirdly, it would vet those nominated by political parties for propriety. We do not propose to accept the Royal Commission recommendation that the appointments commission should have the final word
208
about the identity, as opposed to the numbers, of the political members. The Government believe that political parties must be responsible for proposing those who are to represent them in a House of Parliament.
We would retain the Law Lords as full Members of the House.
We would retain the Bishops' Bench, but reduce those sitting to 16. We expect the appointments commission to have regard to the Royal Commission's recommendation that there should be representation for other faiths and denominations.
All life Peers who are Members of the House when the reform is implemented, including Law Lords, would retain their rights to life membership. We would, however, consider a retirement scheme.
In the gracious Speech, we said that we would publish our proposals for consultation. That is what this White Paper does. We have asked for comments on all or any of the proposals and specifically on the overall composition package, by the end of January. Within our proposals we raise a number of questions. The first is whether the overall balance between elected and nominated Members, Law Lords and Bishops, and between political and independent Members, is right.
The second is whether elections to the Lords should be linked to general elections, those for the European Parliament, or over time linked to those from devolved and regional bodies within the UK. The Royal Commission recommended a link with the European Parliament, but the Government see some difficulty with that.
The third concerns the length of term for elected Members. The Royal Commission recommended terms of 15 years or three Parliaments, and that there should be no re-election. Fifteen years is extremely long by comparative standards. The Government are interested in views on whether it is acceptable that elected Members should go on for so long without renewing their mandates.
The fourth question relates to the term of appointment. The same considerations apply here. The Royal Commission also proposed 15-year terms for appointed Members, although it accepted reappointment.
Fifthly, what grounds should lead to statutory expulsion from the House? With the ending of the link with the peerage, it will now be possible to expel Members from the House if that is wished.
Sixthly, should there be a change from an expenses-based system of remuneration? Members of your Lordships' House now receive expenses only. The Government see some attractions in continuing with that system, which I personally could bear with some fortitude. That system is consistent with the part-time status on which the proposals are based. However, it must be borne in mind that the absence of a salary might operate as a disincentive to broadening the social mix of the House. The Government have therefore asked for views on that.

209
We are confident that the proposals set out in this White Paper will create a House of Lords that is fit for a modern democracy. I hope that it will strengthen Parliament as a whole by providing a better and more effective complement to the House of Commons. That will mean, I hope, better Government for our country.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord for the Statement and for making available to me earlier this afternoon the White Paper and a copy of the Statement. I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington that it would have been desirable for the White Paper to have been made available to Members of this House at least by the time the Leader of the House rose to speak.
Having said that, can the noble and learned Lord take from me my bitter disappointment with what I believe are shabby and inadequate proposals? Those of us who have been Members of the House for some time have been promised for years plans to create a more authoritative, more legitimate House. What we have before us is an instrument of prime ministerial patronage hiding behind a fig leaf of token democracy. We were promised a stronger and more independent House. What we now have is a House with its powers reduced and the props that reinforced the independence of Members of this place kicked away. That is not reform. It certainly is not democracy and it is not even what my noble friend Lord Wakeham suggested in his Royal Commission.
This document is muddled, superficial and misleading. Frankly, it is an insult to the intelligence of Parliament. In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister talks of creating a Parliament "fit for the 21st century". That is a soundbite even Miss Jo Moore would have blushed at. The Government propose a House of patronage on a scale unknown in any country of the world and not seen in this country for many centuries.
Not only is the content of the document utterly inadequate; so also is the timing of its publication. Can you credit it—in the middle of a war, with public services literally falling apart—the Prime Minister picks further changes to this House as the flagship for the relaunch of his domestic agenda? There cannot be a single teacher, nurse, passenger or policeman in this kingdom who shares the priorities of the Prime Minister on this. When the duty of the leadership is to keep the country united, the Prime Minister has set out to divide Parliament and every party in it right down the middle. Make no mistake: opinions are divided on how to go forward in every single part of this House.
No longer can Parliament be treated as a political football, kicked and spun this way and that for the convenience of the inner circle at the top of one political party. Enduring reform should be built only on cross-party agreement. So will the Government now enter discussions on the functions, role, powers and composition of the House? Will they consider even
210
now what they should have done a long time ago; that is, put the issues to a Joint Committee of both Houses and remit this White Paper to that committee in order to seek such a political consensus? Would not that be the right way forward? Parliament cannot be excluded from discussions on the future of Parliament itself any more.
Will the noble and learned Lord explain to the House the reason why there is such a desperate rush? Is not the limit of a few weeks to 31st January next a surprisingly brief period for consultation? Furthermore, can the noble and learned Lord say whether legislation is planned for this Session? That, at least, should be a question to which he should be able easily to reply "yes" or "no".
Parliament stands at a cusp. Unless this place retains its independence, powers and free procedures, and builds its authority to hold the executive to account, parliamentary accountability will be at risk. The other place is not functioning well as a check on the executive or as a filter for bad legislation. We must not be distracted from focusing on that fundamental truth by an executive in a hurry with its own private agenda of manipulation. It is of course essential that we debate the many issues arising from the White Paper. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will tell the House what plans he has made to facilitate such a debate and when.
I have not had time to study the White Paper in detail, but I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord some specific points. How can he claim that elected Peers will strengthen this House when he proposes to reduce the powers that Members of the House already enjoy? Is it not astonishing that, at a time when governments rely more and more on legislation by regulation, the Government want to remove from this House its power to reject secondary legislation? How do the Government propose that Parliament should prevent the passage of oppressive regulations? Can he further take it from me that we shall be implacably opposed to any reduction in the powers of this House?
I do wonder what happened to the Jay doctrine; that through reform, this House would be more authoritative and more respected by the Government. It is obvious that elected Peers should mean more power and more authority for this House. If the noble and learned Lord does not accept that, then why on earth are we bothering with this process? The blunt truth is that this Government simply do not want a more powerful House. That is why they go on resisting any proposal to give this House more opportunity to consider and amend financial legislation. How can that position be maintained after the arrival of elected Peers?
Earlier, I said that the Government were out to kick away the props of independence in this House. Why else have they rejected the proposal, common to the reports of both my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and my noble friend Lord Wakeham, that elected Peers should serve for 15-year terms? The very purpose of that recommendation was

211
to stop Government Whips creeping up to noble Lords and saying, "Oppose Shaun Woodward again, mate, and you'll be deselected". No wonder that is something which the Prime Minister cannot stomach.
Let us consider the proposed method of election. Can any Member of the House believe that the Government are planning to introduce the discredited system used for European elections—the notorious closed lists? It is the system that gives party bosses the say over who is elected. In fact it is appointment at one remove, but appointment none the less. I have to remind the Leader of the House—he may have forgotten—that the system was imposed on this House only by the use of the Parliament Acts. What an insult to propose its use to send party appointees to your Lordships' House.
Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the new Members of the House would be called "ML", so that the peerage would no longer be linked to a seat in this House? Is not that the very proposal that the noble and learned Lord himself voted against when it was put forward by my noble friend Lord Ferrers? What has changed?
Will the noble and learned Lord also explain a little further the numbers? Currently there are 704 Members of the House. After the proposals before us, excluding the hereditary Peers, the total will be 733 Members. But the noble and learned Lord has talked of a cap of 600 Members. What is the plan to reduce the numbers? Will those aged over 75 be forced into retirement, as I understand is set out in the plans envisaged for senior former Law Lords in the House? How will the transition be operated? Will the noble and learned Lord explain the mechanism? Furthermore, how will the House be rebalanced to reflect party strengths after each general election?
In 1999, the Government were able to tear up a stable constitutional settlement, but they cannot dictate in what shape that settlement will again bed down. That must be a matter for this House and for another place. Inevitably those decisions will be affected by opinions outside the House. Given that, can the noble and learned Lord explain to the public that we now have an 80 per cent-appointed House and that the effect of these so-called modernising reforms will be to deliver in its place an 80 per cent-appointed House?
What is the noble and learned Lord's defence, in what the Prime Minister calls "a modern Britain", for a scale of patronage that has seen the Prime Minister appoint over one-third of the Members of this House in a little over four years? What is the justification for keeping that power? In the Government's view, will elected Peers be more legitimate than life Peers? Does the noble and learned Lord believe that, when elected Members are brought in, Ministers of this House will be drawn only from their ranks?
In 1999, the Government advised another place to reject a statutory appointments commission that this House had demanded, on the grounds that it was not appropriate. Why is something that was inappropriate
212
then appropriate today? Is it something to do with the reception so unfortunately given to the appointment of so-called people's Peers? Or what, my Lords?
Where is the consistency and rationale in all of this? Whenever I look for a philosophy behind this reform, I find only opportunism, and whenever I look for a set of principles, I find only expediency. It is a fig leaf, a token element of elected Peers that is designed to mask the design of the Prime Minister and his cronies to keep their grip on this House. This is the last chance to secure the strong and effective House of Lords that many of us have wanted and were promised. Noble Lords of all parties and none must unite to embrace changes that strengthen our Chamber and unite to resist those that would sweep away the powers and duties of our House.
These are shoddy proposals that were cooked up in the Cabinet Office over a decanter of port and are fit only to get a divided Cabinet past the end of today. The Government should be ashamed of this document. It demeans this House, it demeans Parliament, and, worst of all, it demeans the Government themselves.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for allowing us to see the Statement a few hours in advance. I am most grateful to him. May I also say that I hope that it will be made as widely available as possible?
First, we are concerned that the White Paper has been published at a time of urgent emergency legislation, because we believe that it requires very careful deliberation by Members of this House and of another place. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to give an assurance of the kind that was requested by the Leader of the Opposition. Will he assure us that there will be a full debate in this House before Christmas—that is to say, well before the consultation period runs out—on the basis of at least a full two days of discussion? I ask that question because the White Paper makes it plain that consultation is not open beyond the end of January. Given the Recess, Members of this House will know that, unless we have a commitment to such a debate, there will be no possibility of having the full discussion that is essential on a matter of such importance. It would have been open to the Government to raise this matter later, but the fact that they have not done so means that there is virtually an obligation to make such time available within their own timetable.
Secondly, I have a very central problem with the statement. I believe that it is a problem that should be shared throughout the House. I do not believe that any Member of this House wishes to usurp the House of Commons or would challenge the pre-eminence of the other place. Indeed, during the period in which I have been a Member of this House, I have noticed it defer time and again to the elected House. In some cases, it has done so even to the point of not pressing an amendment on being informed that the other place

213
takes a different view. Of course, it is subject to the Salisbury convention, which, in a sense, enshrines the doctrine of the pre-eminence of the other place.
However, with great respect, that is not the problem. Here I may echo to some extent the sentiments expressed in rather fiercer terms by the Leader of the Opposition. The problem is simply that, in this country, we have an executive that is consistently growing in power and a legislature that is incapable of holding it fully to account. We see in the other place—of course, I was a Member of it for many years—a growing flow of legislation, which means that none of it can be scrutinised as fully as it should be. We see a situation in which Bills are guillotined and are not, therefore, fully debated. I am not making a party point. I hope that I can appeal to Members of this House on the constitutional grounds that this is not a point of that sort, but one about the whole nature of our democracy. I have seen more and more amendments—sometimes they are tabled as late as the Report stage of a Bill—being inadequately discussed, scrutinised and debated and then folded into legislation. Often only a few years later, the government of the day—I repeat that this is true of all governments—deeply regret that legislation, change it and reintroduce it in another form. I have seen as many as nine education Bills in a period of only seven years. That means that governments go back and rework the legislation because it was enacted without adequate discussion and scrutiny. In that context, I very much welcome what the Leader of the House said—I believe that he will stand by it—about making an attempt to ensure more pre-legislative scrutiny and more study of draft Bills.
Whatever our party, we cannot fail to recognise that the fundamental problem is the weakness not only of this place, but, indeed, of another place as well. It is a place that responds time and again to these strong instruments of reward, patronage and promotion, and in which it is, quite honestly, therefore difficult to get independent concerns expressed fully. That is the case because the whole structure of our system means that what is essential is party loyalty, which is a very fine virtue, but is very often to the exclusion of the operation of judgment and common sense on the passage of legislation.
Therefore, the question that is before this House and another place is how we can so far reform our legislature that it becomes a powerful and significant one that can hold the government of the day to account. That is what people want. They want a government who are accountable to the people, and it is the job of the legislature to ensure that that accountability is real and transparent, and that it is upheld.
In that context, one of the things that seems to me and to those on my Benches to be crucial is the need for us to consider the issue of Lords reform in the wider context of reform of the whole of Parliament. It makes no sense for us to talk about having lesser or more functions without knowing how far that will complement—I use the word carefully—the work of
214
the House of Commons. We cannot seriously discuss the composition of this House without knowing what our most crucial functions are to be. If I may say so, that is simply to put the job before the job description, and it makes very little logical sense.
If it is the view of the Leader of the House—and I hope that it is—that there should be very close liaison with another place in determining the reform of this House, I suggest that he might look at the Committee on Working Practices that he has established and at the Committee on Modernisation in another place and consider whether they could work together to ensure that the reforms are complementary and are carried out in a way that makes cohesive sense. May I ask him directly whether he would be willing to consider such a joint gathering or Committee? In that regard, I should like to quote to him some words spoken by the Leader of the House of Commons. With reference to pre-legislative scrutiny, he said:
"We are currently consulting on the best way in which that can be done, but a Joint Committee is obviously one of the options, and I understand that there is willingness in both Houses to proceed with such a Committee."—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/01; col. 1007.]
Can the Leader of the House tell us where discussions have got to on that issue, what the scope of that Joint Committee might be and whether he is working with his right honourable friend in another place to bring about the cohesion that that implies? I should like to add that it is the view of my colleagues and myself that this requires a reform that looks both at the functions of this place and then, subsequently, at its composition. I fully accept that it would be inappropriate for such a committee to consider composition, but it would be wholly appropriate and, indeed, essential, for it to consider functions.
Turning to the issue of functions, perhaps I may make the following points. We very much welcome the proposal put forward earlier for a committee on statutory instruments. Your Lordships will know of the huge multiplication in secondary legislation—again under governments of both colours—that we have seen over the past 15 or 20 years. I, for one, am profoundly fearful of this multiplication. In many parts of our society it leads to a great sense of grievance that they are over regulated, over instructed and over told what to do. As a democracy, we must be careful about the multiplication of ill-debated secondary legislation. That is why I welcome the lead given by the Leader of the House on this.
I associate myself with the Leader of the Opposition in that we would be extremely reluctant to see the abandonment of the ability of this House to reject a statutory instrument—or, at least, the ability to insist upon a rethinking because of the possibility of its rejection. Many Members of the House—not least the distinguished members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee—are aware that, in some instances, statutory instruments now carry very heavy burdens and, in some cases, intervene in the traditional civil liberties that the people of this country have long been able to enjoy.

215
Further on the issue of functions, perhaps I may draw attention to an area which is not examined by Parliament at all. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us whether it is an area which is open to consultation and discussion. Your Lordships will know that on these Benches we have pushed very hard for the concept of a committee to scrutinise treaties. At a time when a body such as the World Trade Organisation is attracting passionate controversy among young people, it is rather absurd that Parliament cannot discuss such treaties. Of course any decision must lie with the Government, but is it really right that we cannot discuss or scrutinise any of these treaties? Another example is the convention on biological weapons, which today is central to the concerns of many of our fellow citizens. So can we look further at the areas which are not considered by Parliament? I gave an example of treaties; another is the area of public appointments.
Let me turn now to the issue of the composition of the House. In this context, I shall refer again to the Leader of another place. He referred to the need for,
"a democratic and representative second chamber".
On these Benches we, simple-mindedly, understand the word "democratic" to mean that people should be elected and accountable to their electors. Therefore it has long been our view—we have never strayed from it—that in the House of Lords political Peers should be elected. I repeat: political Peers should be elected, either directly or indirectly. They must be accountable.
We believe that the combination of a fixed term Parliament and a different system of election—I share the view that a closed list is not a fully democratic method—is critical if this House is to operate as an effective scrutinising chamber. We do not depart from that view. It is important to my position and the position of my colleagues on these Benches that I make that absolutely clear.
In the White Paper, the appointments board has the important function of testing the probity of potential Peers. We agree with that. It also has the function of suggesting the appointment of those who might sit as independent Peers. In our view, none of that retreats from the principle of the election of political Peers.
In that context, we strongly support the proposal of the Leader of the House and the Government that there should be a limit to the size of the House—although, like the Leader of the Conservative Party, I find it hard to see how that can be achieved. We agree with them about the dropping of the title of a peerage and making it entirely honorary. The "Freimeisters" and so on of the Federal Republic of Germany are perfectly acceptable in our country, but they should not carry political power for one moment. We support and commend the Government's proposal that this House should broadly reflect the position of the electors at the last election. That would bring us to at least a kind of dim reflection of democracy. It is certainly a long first step.
I shall not detain the House much further. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he can tell us something about his intentions for reducing the size
216
of the House. Does he have in mind a voluntary retirement system or an upper age limit? I should also like to ask him whether the invitation to consultation in paragraph 96 is, as it were, open-ended, or is it a closed list of issues for consultation?
In conclusion, let me stress again, very clearly, that, first, there must be careful consideration of how to scrutinise effectively and hold to account the Government of the day— whatever day, whatever government. Secondly, there must be a combination of reform in the other place and this place, and the two must be harmonised and brought together into an effective common proposal. Thirdly, and finally, we do not believe that you can have a democratic and representative House unless at least the majority of that House is elected by our fellow citizens and given the credibility and legitimacy without which it cannot hope to achieve that position.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was uncharacteristically ratty today. It must be something in the water. He used phrases such as "patronage" and "stranglehold on the House". Unlike Marshal Goering, I did not reach for my revolver but for my statistics. In November 1999, there were in this House 483 Conservative Peers; in November 1999, there were 194 Labour Peers. Did patronage and stranglehold not matter then, or was it simply overlooked?
Let me look at "stranglehold" and "patronage" for a second or two. At the moment, despite the fact that we have won two crushing victories in general elections, we have in this House about 25 fewer Labour Peers than Conservatives. We are in a minority. That does not sound like very effective patronage to me.
In speaking of patronage, I beg your Lordships to allow the facts to intrude for a moment or two. Historically—not least when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister and when the noble Lord was a member of the Government—the Prime Minister designated the number and identity of the Cross-Benchers; the Prime Minister designated the number and identity of Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Peers. This Prime Minister—it must have been overlooked—is giving away virtually all his patronage. None of the Cross-Benchers will be subject to his control; none of the Conservatives will be subject to his control; and none of the Liberal Democrats. The only element of choice that he will have over Labour Peers is to nominate the identities. He will not even be able to select the number. That is for the Appointments Commission. So shall we, once and for all, shoot that particular fox?
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked, as did the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the plans for a debate. I entirely agree that we need a full debate, at a convenient time and with sufficient time for all to speak who wish to do so. Obviously, the usual channels will take that forward in the normal way.

217
I do not believe that what is in the White Paper is the end of the story. I agree with the noble Baroness. As I have suggested previously, we need to look at this matter in the round. We need to examine working practices.
The noble Baroness rightly said that we do not do our work of scrutiny properly. That is partly because we do it at half-past two in the morning, when everyone is exhausted. I have suggested in this Chamber that we might perhaps think of working in the morning; and that we might think about not having two and half months off every summer. These are merely tactful suggestions; they are not intended to frighten the horses. But if we mean business in the way the noble Baroness suggests—and I agree with her—that is the way in which we should begin to work.
I am all in favour of learning what we can from the Commons. I endorse the noble Baroness's view that if Members of another House are going about modernisation in a way that is consistent with our methods and our traditions, of course we ought to learn from them, and they might usefully learn from us. It is a matter of literal indifference to me what the identity of a powerful executive is. I believe that it is the duty of this House to challenge the executive and bring it to account. I do not believe that we do it sufficiently at present. I believe that our working practices ought to improve in that way. I do think that composition is important; and I believe that we shall be a more effective House.
How is the cap to be brought about? Sometimes—not very often —Members of this House are called to service elsewhere. There is a possibility that we might consider retirement. No one is suggesting compulsory retirement. However, if some of your Lordships wish to take retirement, it is suggested in the White Paper that we ought to examine the possibility in a decent, sensitive, thoughtful way. No one is bullying anyone to leave. In any event, I have no power, nor does the Chief Whip, given our minority in this House compared with the Conservatives alone, to insist on anything. I am putting these proposals forward in a spirit of genuine consensus.
There is a 12-week consultation period, which is the usual length of time. It cannot be said that we have not consulted, or at least argued about this matter. We have spent the past four and half years fully engaged on it—and the previous 100 years!
I ask for a decently neutral and objective view. There will be independent Cross-Benchers who are wholly free of prime ministerial patronage. The numbers of the political Peers will be designated by the Appointments Commission. No Prime Minister in the past 100 years of whom I have read has given away so much patronage, so quickly, on a voluntary basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke about political philosophy. He said how important it was—we approach the purple passages—that this House should be strong, independent and authoritative. On the "Today" programme this morning, he said that what is wanted is a second Chamber that revises
218
legislation, stands up to the Government and holds the executive up to scrutiny. I agree on all three counts. The noble Lord went on to say, "If you want that authority, that inevitably leads you down the road of elections". Now we come to the philosophy. He said, "What that proportion should be, we have not yet decided". That does not sound like a particularly coherent approach to these proposals, which have been trailed for a very long time.
It is idle to talk about further research. We have had a Royal Commission, chaired by a former Leader of the House and former Chief Whip. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, served on the commission. The other persons sitting on the commission, whatever one thinks of its conclusions, were extremely distinguished. We have had these arguments.
The noble Baroness asked whether the list of questions in paragraph 96 of the White Paper was a closed list. The text makes it plain that it is not. The wording is that the Government are,
"particularly interested in views on the following questions".
We have put this out for debate. But the debate must come to a sensible end and we propose to legislate in due time. The noble Lord asked me when. I am not in a position to say when. I do not know how the parliamentary timetable will pan out. Self-evidently, to be deeply serious for a moment, we have very heavy work to do arising out of events that none of us could possibly have anticipated. I hope—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I ask his forgiveness for intervening. Perhaps I may ask him this direct question. Does he see the possibility of a link between those in this House who are concerned with reform and the Commons modernisation committee? Such a link would enable us to consider some of these issues in that particular context—between the Houses rather than on our own.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have no objection to taking that suggestion forward to the Lord President. I am happy to discuss it with him.
We have already started on pre-legislative scrutiny—not sufficiently, but we have made a good start. I have stated privately to both Leaders of the opposition parties—I state it publicly now—that it is my presumption that we should accept any PNQ that is proposed. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will agree that I have done that.
We can do all kinds of important things. What we cannot do is just muddle along in the same old way, whether in the way we work or in terms of our composition.
3.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, it may be appropriate for me to intervene briefly from these Benches in view of the implications of the White Paper. We are grateful to have had a brief sight of it, and we are pleased with the progress that is being made. We

219
believe that a half-reformed House is worse than no reform whatever. We shall study the White Paper carefully and make our representations.
So far as concerns religious representation in this House, we recall our submission on the Wakeham report, when we concluded that a minimum of 20 Bishops should have places in the second Chamber in order for us to be effective parliamentary servants. We stated then that fewer than that number would mean that a diminished range of experience would be represented. It could result in Bishops facing a conflict between their diocesan and their parliamentary responsibilities. We look forward to further opportunities to make the case in more detail. I emphasise that we approach the matter in terms of an argument for responsible service, certainly not privilege.
I note that the Government's present proposals have recognised the practical difficulties in broadening the religious constituency in this House. I sympathise with those problems. However, I want to emphasise that the principle of broad religious presence is one which we have strongly affirmed, and will continue to affirm. The Church of England seeks assurances that in some way this principle will be given real substance in the final arrangements for the composition of the House. We believe that it is especially important, following the recent tragic events, that forums are developed in which complex and sensitive matters to do with relations between the faith communities and their place in modern society can be aired and debated in a measured and well informed manner. The House of Lords, with its distinctive tradition of religious presence, has a unique potential to play a significant part in meeting this challenge.
Speaking personally, perhaps I may add a word on the subject of election or appointment. The issue touches the perceptions of this House's contribution. I hope that we shall give close attention to the broad representation that unelected Members can bring to the deliberations of the House.
Noble Lords: Cross-Bencher!
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think it is for me to answer the right reverend Prelate at this stage. I understand his point. I think he will know that I wrote to the Archbishop in the early summer. We are having a meeting shortly on this question. We shall listen carefully to any concerns that are raised.
I immediately endorse the principle that there must be real substance in religious attendance and representation in this House. I have no doubt that the Appointments Commission would regard that as an extremely important duty.
Also, if one does not simply adopt the purist approach—which I entirely recognise—that everyone ought to be elected who has any part to play in a modern democracy, I believe that unelected Members are capable of giving a considerable amount of value and public service to this House.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, first may I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, for the Statement and for his courtesy in allowing me to have a copy of it and the White Paper? There is much to absorb in nearly 40 pages of the White Paper, but may I first welcome the intention to preserve the Cross-Bench element and Her Majesty's Government's recognition of the great value of the Peers who sit as independents?
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it will be necessary to look closely at, and to have rules about, who should be included in the make-up of the suggested low figure of 120, which represents only 20 per cent of a 600-strong House? On these Benches we now total almost 25 per cent, excluding the Law Lords.
The Statement appears to lump together representation of independent expertise and the broader community in the United Kingdom. Is it the Government's proposition that the 20 per cent is to embrace all non-party members of the new Chamber, including those from other faiths? What if a Member of your Lordships' House decides to surrender a party Whip? While such Members are welcome to sit among us on the Cross Benches, and to be supported by the Convenor, their political independence will not have been screened by the appointments commission. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the Government should not be allowed to diminish the total number of independents appointed to the House?
Increased representation of women and those from ethnic minorities is mentioned. Are the Government proposing that the 30 per cent guidance should be applied across the House as a whole, or to each party and group within it? Reference is also made to the peerage continuing as an honour. Will such honours be awarded along with others in Her Majesty's New Year and Birthday honours lists? Who will be responsible for selection for these awards?
Finally, have the Government a view on what the new House will be called?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the House will be called the House of Lords and Members of it will be called Members of the House of Lords. The question of honours will be a matter for Her Majesty and it will be her decision as to whether there should continue to be New Year and Birthday honours lists. The fact that a peerage is decoupled from the right to sit in the House of Lords will have no effect on that.
It is intended that new appointments should comprise not less than 30 per cent women. On the question of political independence, one would have to trust noble Lords. If they said that they had left the Conservative Party, or indeed any other, one would assume that they had done so scrupulously and that they had genuinely gone to the Cross Benches. Obviously, the appointments commission will have to monitor those matters, which are some of the intricacies we shall need to work through. There will be no difficulty if one has a statutory appointments commission with a good deal of power.

221
I shall consider any figures that are suggested by noble Lords. The Royal Commission figure is 120, but if the noble and gallant Lord wishes me to reconsider it I shall be more than happy to discuss the matter with him.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that hereditary Peers will not lose their right to sit until after the elections have taken place? Otherwise, there would be a temporary imbalance between the parties, which the appointments commission would hardly want to address. If it did so, a new imbalance would occur as soon as the elections took place. It is obvious that the Government cannot get rid of hereditary Peers until after the elections have taken place.
My second point concerns remuneration. Has the noble Lord closed his mind to the possibility of different remuneration for the elected, as distinct from the unelected?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, I have not closed my mind to that issue. The first point made by the noble Lord has some validity and needs careful thought.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that this Statement has a rather different impact on this House than most government Statements? Whatever the precedents, opinions are being formed as we speak. It is difficult to have such exchanges on the matter when most noble Lords have not seen the White Paper.
I support the protest of my noble friend Lord Waddington. We made a powerful case in the Royal Commission for a mixed elected and nominated Chamber. Will the Leader of the House accept that despite his own silver tongue, the Government have done their best to undermine that case?
I have always argued for a strong elected element, but the case for a nominated element is also strong. It is made stronger by the rapid disappearance from the other House of practical experience of life outside politics. That is a real deficit in our parliamentary system that we can remedy if our arrangements in this House are right. But that will not happen if the arrangements consist of providing that 360 out of the 600 Members of this House are nominated by the party machine. That is not the correct remedy.
Will the Government please consider the matter again in the light of the arguments in our report? Unless they do so, I have the feeling that no Bill will pass through the House because the parties are so deeply divided on the question of composition. We shall be left to proceed more or less as we are, and imperfect as we are, for several years to come.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not follow the point that the noble Lord seeks to make. The majority on the Royal Commission, which he dignified by his presence, chose option B, which suggested
222
87 elected Peers. However, the Government are proposing not 87, but 120—a significantly larger number of elected Peers. We have erred on the side of generosity rather than on mean heartedness.
I am talking about 120 elected Members. There will be 120 nominated and the remainder will be those who are life Peers who continue here. It is true that they come here—we all did, virtually— by one form of patronage or another, but I have not found that that historical patronage has caused people to be any less independent than one would hope.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the strong support on this side of the House for the White Paper? On the specific criticism from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches about how the cap of 600 will work, has not that been answered by the 10-year adjustment period? Is not that the only solution? If there were no cap, the House would continue to increase in number or people would have to be dismissed instantly. Is it not the case that, for once, the Government have got it right? I should have thought that the Opposition Benches would have recognised that this piece of arithmetic is a perfectly tenable solution.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right. When the Opposition have had the opportunity to reflect, I am sure that they will agree with what has just been said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, should some future Members enter this House as a result of voting for a closed list ranked in order by the party rather than the voter, should such Members be classified as elected Peers or nominated Peers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they will be elected Peers in exactly the same way that elected Members of the Commons, who are elected on a closed list of one, are regarded as elected.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I had the privilege of coming to your Lordships' House almost 40 years ago when I was 22 years of age. I do not think that there has been a time since then when reform of one kind or another was not being considered and when the hereditary system was not being subjected to one kind of scrutiny or another.
On all those occasions, it was hoped that the new House, whatever form it might take, would be more democratic, more responsive and, above all, more accountable. Sadly, the proposals that the noble and learned Lord has unveiled this afternoon meet none of those requirements. I share the deep concerns of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, those comments are not fair. They are not an accurate reflection of what is in the White Paper. Nor are they a fair reflection of the relationship between the White Paper and the Royal Commission report. I am

223
confident that the thrust and theme of the White Paper is in harmony with the thrust and theme of the Royal Commission report.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain how any elected element will enhance the ability of this House to perform its functions within the context of maintaining the pre-eminence of the other place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not see any difficulty in that at all. It is important that regions of the United Kingdom are represented here. It is important that there should be that opportunity of election. It seems to me that one will draw on a different reservoir of talent and industry from all kinds of different parts of the community that may not be represented here at the moment. The mere fact that we have a minority elected element I do not think challenges the Commons in the slightest way.
Lord Elton: My Lords, what is striking in my view during the past few years' discussion of this issue has been the enormous general ignorance of what goes on in this House among those outside it who are being invited to comment on the White Paper. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to accept the suggestion of the noble Baroness the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party and arrange an early debate so that we can do our best to inform the public about what the issues are and what our experience of them has so far been. If the noble and learned Lord can find some way in which that information can be more generously distributed from this Chamber to the public than is usual, that would be an additional advantage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I rather agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. Of course, there is a respectable argument for saying that if we have a partially elected element in this House, that will generate wider public interest in what we do. We are not properly served by the media. We had extremely important debates on the events of 11th September but there was hardly a mention of them in the newspapers. I do what I can and the information centre is diligent. Unfortunately, although we are sometimes pleased with ourselves, it is not a universally held emotion.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the elected Members will be elected from large constituencies? Others will be chosen not for their personal qualities but will simply be nominated by the relevant parties. What is the difference in that kind of election between the so-called elected people and those nominated by the political parties?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the difference is that they will have to present themselves, their manifestos and their individual personalities to the electorate. There may have been a time, which I cannot remember, when the individual Member of Parliament
224
made a difference rather than about 500 votes per constituency, but that has not been the position for a long time, certainly not since the death of the university seats.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say if it will be open to everyone to apply to be independent Members? If so, will the appointments commission be limited to selecting the independents from among those who apply or will it be open to the appointments commission to select whoever it thinks most suitable either from those who apply or from anyone else it may choose?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, to gain the prize of sitting in this House one would have to make an application. I do not think that a pantechnicon will travel around the country with its occupants stopping disconsolate people on street corners to ask them whether they want to be Members of the House of Lords.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, this problem has been rumbling for 90 years. Does not the noble and learned Lord think that he is being a little— I hesitate to use my next word—mean in trying to bring this discussion to a conclusion by the end of January? He talks of 12 weeks but there is an intervening feast. Will he be a little generous and give longer than that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one of the reasons the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I would like to make some detectable progress is precisely because for nearly a hundred years we have done nothing at all apart from having discussions. Twelve weeks is the usual period. The Royal Commission report has been available for a long time. There is no one who does not know what is in it. To coin a rather crude phrase, it is "make your mind up" time now. We must progress with reform or at least we must focus our minds on the possibility of it.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I have not yet seen the White Paper and, therefore, my question may be premature. However, if 120 Peers are to be elected, how can we be assured of the political balance of this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the appointments commission is charged with doing that and it has the power and authority to bring that about.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

225
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 5 to 33,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 34 to 57,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 58 to 66,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 67 to 70,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 71 to 100,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 101 to 121,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 122 to 146,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 147 to 152,

Schedule 10,

Clause 153,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 154 to 164,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 165 and 166,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 167 to 170,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 171 to 173.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Barnett Formula
4.16 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett rose to call attention to the case for a review of the Barnett formula; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be clear that this is a non-controversial debate. There has been much written and said about the formula. It would, therefore, be sensible to start with a clear explanation of precisely what it is. I shall then try to explain why it was invented—if that is the right term—why it has survived for more than 20 years, whether it should be changed and, if so, how?
The formula was invented—I have used that word incorrectly—in 1978. Perhaps I should say at the outset that it did not occur to me at the time that it would become a formula, or that it would last so long. The formula really is quite simple. It applies to changes, whether up or down, in the Great Britain total of what is called comparable expenditure. Such expenditure is allocated on the following basis: England, 85 per cent; Scotland, 10 per cent; and Wales, 5 per cent. On that basis it was intended to be approximately population based. I had always assumed that the arrangement would be temporary until a more sophisticated method could be devised which took account of needs. In fact, not only has
226
there been no change to take account of needs, there have been only minor changes to take account of changes in population.
Scotland's share of total UK population has declined ever since the formula was introduced. The White Paper on Scotland's Parliament indicated that the formula would be updated regularly to reflect the population ratio. In response to pressure from English MPs, Alistair Darling, then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, gave a commitment that it would be revised annually. I hope that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will be able to assure us that that has taken place.
I should like to say a few brief words on population figures. I quote from a paper by Professor Heald of Aberdeen University who has done a great deal of work in this area. He states:
"The official population projections for Scotland are chilling, only 4,524,000 persons in 2031 which constitutes an absolute fall of 13.7 per cent from the peak population of 1974. On the basis of the projection, Scotland's share of GB population would be 7.60 per cent in 2031".
So much for the facts on the formula. The next question is why it was invented. The nearest that anyone in the present Government has got to answering that is my noble friend Lord McIntosh on 3rd December 1997. In case he has forgotten, I have extracted his comment from Hansard. He said:
"The advantage of the Barnett formula over the years has not been that it is based on strict rationality but that it avoids argument each year when the allocation of resources is determined".—[Official, Report, 3/12/97; col. 1362.]
I can confirm that that is true. As far as I was concerned, the formula was not strictly rational. As I have said, it was basically decided on a population basis. However, I would not have been able to obtain Cabinet agreement at the time without being able to satisfy English departmental Cabinet Ministers that there were reasonable grounds for allocating a greater level of public expenditure to Scotland and Wales than population figures alone justified. The substantial case that convinced Ministers was the different levels of income per head in Scotland and Wales. My life as Chief Secretary at that time was therefore made just a little bit easier, although I hasten to add that that was not the case that I presented to the Cabinet, because they might not then have agreed it.
As the figures that I shall quote make clear, the situation now is very different. There is obvious unfairness in the working of the formula—although, I hasten to add, not for Wales. I see someone nodding on the other side of the Chamber.
Why has the formula survived for more than 20 years? The major—and, some might think, too simple—reason is that governments generally prefer not to make changes, as that only leads to difficult questions. If that is thought too simple, there is another, more political reason. For 18 years, Margaret Thatcher and John Major resisted making the changes that the figures clearly show should, in fairness, have been made. They were obviously worried that it would lose them votes in Scotland and Wales. The net result was that, despite not changing the formula, they lost

227
every Conservative seat in Scotland and Wales. I do not pretend that that had anything to do with the formula, for or against. The new Labour Government have also resisted any changes to the formula. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister why.
The latest available figures come from the Treasury and the Office for National Statistics, so I assume that they must be true. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's document costs £15.60. I hasten to say that I got it from the Library, but at that price it surely has to be true and, I hope, accurate. The documents show that in 1999—the most recent figures available—GDP per head in Scotland was £12,512, in Wales it was just £10,449 and in the north-east of England it was £10,024. What is called "identifiable" managed government expenditure per head in 1999–2000 in Scotland was £5,271, in Wales it was £5,052 and in the north-east it was only £4,837. I shall not quote many more figures, but I hope that those are simple enough to make the position clear.
As a confirmed sceptic on statistics, I feel bound to say that the figures at least show a general factual position, if nothing more. In this context, I assume that the word "identifiable" is important in relation to expenditure. For example, Professor Heald, in an important paper, has given an indication of why the comparatively simple formula has in practice become rather complex over the past 23 years. He describes the changes since 1978 as "Son of Barnett". I do not complain about that, although I do not know what it means, except that there have been major changes. He said:
"an introduction of cash planning in 1982, and the new planning total in 1990 have fundamentally affected the operation of the formula".
In addition, he points out that the formula applies only to block expenditure. I know that all your Lordships will know what that means. It certainly means that it is not the same as it was.
If the Minister has new figures, I am sure that the House would be glad to hear them, but for the moment these are the latest figures published. I would be pleased to hear what the Minister has to say in addition. It is clear that within any set of figures that one cares to take, be it the Barnett formula, "Son of Barnett" or "Grandson of Barnett"—although I have not got one; it would have to be "Granddaughter of Barnett"—there have been many changes that have confused an originally simple formula and made things rather difficult to comprehend.
Action taken on the basis of these figures alone would not solve the present unfairness of the allocation of resources. For example, within each area and region there are large differences. In the northwest of England, Merseyside is very different from my area of Greater Manchester—and most other parts of the region—in respect of GDP per head. Even in what is thought of as the affluent south-east, there are pockets where there is undoubtedly a need for higher levels of public expenditure. Relatively prosperous London, which is always much in the news, has the highest income per head, at approximately 130 per
228
cent of the UK all-region average, yet I am sure that government expenditure there is much higher than in the north-east or the north-west. It is about the same as in Wales, where income per head is only 80 per cent of the UK average. I am sure that that will not stop the Mayor of London seeking even more.
Despite clearly doing very well in terms of income and expenditure per head, I am sure that Scotland can and will argue its case for even higher levels of expenditure. I am sure that we shall hear the arguments of sparsity of population, a colder climate, poor health records and problems of education. The case is further confused by the lumping together of capital and current expenditure. Yet even the general figures show conclusively at least one example of terrible unfairness. The latest figure for income per head in Scotland is £12,512 and government expenditure per head is £5,271, while in the north-east, with income per head at only £10,024, government expenditure per head is lower, at £4,837.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am afraid that I have a problem fitting my speech into 15 minutes and I have to stick rigidly to the rule. In the other place I would normally have given way to the noble Lord at all times.
There will undoubtedly be scepticism about the figures. As I have said, I share that scepticism, but I hope that there can be little doubt from the figures that I have quoted about the overwhelming case for a change in the formula. As the founder, I readily admit to having given no consideration to needs at that time or where public resources should be allocated, not just in Scotland and Wales, but in Great Britain generally. In fairness, the job of Chief Secretary does not lend itself to doing what is essentially a departmental job.
What should be done? I hope that, inadequate as they are, the statistics show that the changes required go much wider than a simple amendment to the Barnett formula. The information currently available makes it impossible to propose the kind of major changes that are clearly required. I hate to recommend yet another review, but without one we shall not know where and what action is needed. The current Comprehensive Spending Review, as it is called, will not do the job.
The Motion relates to the subject of the Barnett formula. It would have been nice—over many years I have grown rather fond of the name of that formula—if I could have concluded that it was so good that there was no need to make substantial changes.
But I have previously suggested that instead of scrapping such an excellent name, any changes that result should perhaps be described as the Barnett Formula Mark II or the Barnett grandson's or granddaughter's formula. If the major review that I am suggesting concludes that the changes required would still need a formula for Scotland and Wales, I inform the Government that I should be very happy indeed if they wish to continue using the present name for the new formula. But as I have said, if the proposal should

229
be scrapped, as I hope it will be, then as the man who introduced the formula, I hope that it will be wholly non-controversial in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I would like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for putting down this Motion for debate and for being successful in the ballot. I also congratulate him on the way in which he introduced the debate and explained the mysteries of his formula. I believe that my contribution would best be from my experience as a junior Minister at the Scottish Office in the early 1960s, which is nearly 40 years ago, and later as Secretary of State for Scotland between 1970 and 1974, before the Barnett formula was available.
In reaching decisions on the amount of the Scottish block expenditure in relation to that for England and Wales, which were together at that time, negotiations had to take place. I understand that they were much easier after the Barnett formula was introduced. The formula has been much misunderstood. As the noble Lord explained, it does apply only to changes in block expenditure in England which automatically apply to Scotland in a set proportion. As it is sometimes thought, it does not set the initial block expenditure decided on for England and Wales and then for Scotland.
It has not been affected by devolution. As I said, I go back to the early 1960s when I was a junior Minister at the Scottish Office and this area was within my portfolio. Then we had to take decisions on the block grant for England and later for Wales. A pattern had been set by what was called the Goschen formula after 1888 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The formula recognised that more expenditure was required in Scotland per capita for geographical and other reasons; for example, for areas of sparse population. The Exchequer contributions were accordingly larger in proportion in block grants for Scotland than for Wales.
At the time I was a Minister in the early 1960s, when the contribution by central government to local government expenditure, for example, with the rate support grant, for England was at 50 per cent, the contribution for Scotland was 8.5 per cent more. So that 58.5 per cent was contributed by the Exchequer to the total local authority expenditure for Scotland. Proportions had to be negotiated each year. I believe that when the noble Lord was Chief Secretary he performed a signal service in codifying and institutionalising the process through his formula.
Now he says that it is time to move on and that the formula should be altered and reviewed though it is still applicable now. I believe that the name Barnett is likely to become as famous as the name Goschen. That was suggested in 1988, I believe, and it has come true. The formula was extended to Wales in 1980 and I believe that it now applies also to Northern Ireland.
230
But is it still relevant and necessary? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, suggested that it may not be.
One favourable attribute of the formula has been its flexibility. For example, an increase in expenditure in England on health would lead to a proportionate increase for Scotland although it did not have to be in the health sector. It may be in other areas of public expenditure and for other purposes.
The advantages for the smaller parts of the United Kingdom have been that the formula recognised and protected the existing principle of differentials. It has reduced the amount of negotiation and argument each time England receives an increase to meet anticipated expenditure. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as regards what system or formula should be devised in future, if it is necessary and relevant, given that the Barnett formula has served its purpose and may no longer be needed.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, who is Goschen? We all know who the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is, and he is to be congratulated on bringing forward an issue of great importance to the people of Wales. Perhaps I may also say how glad I am to be with my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth on the day he makes his maiden speech. He is an expert in this field and I look forward very much to hearing what he has to say.
It has to be the aim of any government to distribute resources fairly between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom in order to remove deprivation and disadvantage and to equalise prosperity. The Barnett formula, based on a population count, assumed that if a higher average of percentage of available resources was given to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, then their pressing needs would be met. It was thought that in due course such an approach might lead to a level platform of prosperity throughout the United Kingdom. It may appear to have worked in Scotland because its per capita income has been lifted very nearly to the average of the United Kingdom, but only at the expense of the loss of population to which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred.
It has most certainly not worked for Wales. In 1988 the income per capita in Wales was 87 per cent of the United Kingdom. Now it has dropped to 80 per cent. Wales is becoming poorer in relative terms. Therefore, 63 per cent of the land area of Wales, covering 65 per cent of the population of 1.9 million people, has now been granted objective one status for the purpose of European funds.
There is a clear unfairness in the formula. An inter-departmental study led by the Treasury in 1979 constructed a needs-based formula as opposed to a population-based formula. It calculated that, considering mortality rates, literacy, numeracy, unemployment, housing, deprivation and so on, Wales needed nine per cent more funding than England to achieve parity over a period of time as opposed to the

231
Barnett formula allowance of six per cent. Wales would require 9 per cent on the needs-based formula that the Treasury constructed in 1979. Since that period Wales would have received £77.739 billion more for its needs than it actually had. That is a very considerable sum.
Scotland did better. The needs model produced a 16 per cent requirement, but Scotland's needs were met by Barnett to the extent of 22 per cent. That may be why Scotland has done rather better under the formula and has caught up, while Wales has slipped behind.
It is unacceptable that the prosperity gap between Wales and England should be widening and that the Welsh Assembly should be deprived of funds to deal with the endemic problems that Wales faces—problems that will no doubt be increased by fresh burdens on Welsh agriculture and the Welsh rural population. It is said that there are inequalities between the English regions. Well, it is up to them to press for the framework of government that they require. Wales cannot wait while areas of England complain about their relative poverty but do nothing about it. We already have some of the machinery to effect change in the Welsh Assembly. However, we in Wales pay our taxes entirely to the Westminster Government and nothing to the Assembly. We want that money back, and with it a fair share of the wealth and prosperity that accrues to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The way in which objective one funding has been allocated shows the difficulties arising from the mechanical nature of the Barnett formula. In last year's comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor had to bust the formula and announce a significant increase in the Assembly's budget. That, it is hoped, will release the additional European structural funds that Wales requires but, despite considerable lobbying by the Assembly, will not provide the matched funding that should accompany it. The Assembly will be required to find £380 million from its existing budget to provide matched funding for the structural funds. That will squeeze other areas of expenditure. What on earth is the use of giving additional European funds to Wales if its own expenditure on schools, hospitals and roads has to be cut?
The Barnett formula has run its course. It had its part to play in allocating funds between departments in Whitehall when the Welsh Office was simply another department, but even then it failed in its long-term goal of promoting fairness and equality between the nations of the United Kingdom. It is too inflexible and mechanistic to be applied to the allocation of resources between Westminster and the Welsh Assembly. A needs-based formula must be devised.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that when the figure five appears on the clock, the speaker's time is finished. Recently, we ended up with the Minister having only half her allotted time to reply.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I apologise to the House for having taken too much of your Lordships' time on what is a matter of considerable concern in Wales.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, the name of my noble friend Lord Barnett has been compared to that of Goschen. While Lord Randolph Churchill famously forgot Goschen, none of us will ever forget Barnett.
The Barnett formula was valuable in its time; it provided a rough-and-ready formula based on population that helped to ensure that the passage of devolution was not impaired or handicapped by conflict between Westminster, Edinburgh and Cardiff over the distribution of expenditure. For Northern Ireland, I am tempted to say that it was a godsend, if that is not too sectarian a remark for that part of the United Kingdom.
It was a rough-and-ready, practical approach, as my noble friend Lord Barnett observed. My noble Friend, Lord Callaghan, who was Prime Minister when it was introduced, observed in this House that it grafted something that was broadly rational on to something that was fundamentally irrational. Let us now consider it pragmatically, as was done in the 1970s, to see whether, for practical reasons, it is not time for a revised version.
The previous speeches have focused on fiscal aspects. I should like briefly to make three constitutional observations, because the formula bears so strongly on devolution. First, the Barnett formula illustrates how centralised is our system—how it works contrary to devolution. It is based on grants from the Treasury and power at the centre. It illustrates why the United Kingdom has been slow to devolve, and how devolution is still not observed in the spirit, although it is in the letter.
Secondly, the process under the formula is dominated by the needs of England. It is the expenditure on England from which the other percentages derive and the concept of needs is devised. That can lead to great distortions, as we have heard. There is a fundamental divergence in principle between the effect of the Barnett formula and the fact of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Thirdly—although others, notably my noble friend Lord Radice, who will be speaking later, know more about this than I do—the formula contains a misconception of England. England is presented as a unit. There is no observation of regional variations within England. It may be fair to Scotland; it may have once been thought fair to Wales, although I do not believe that. But the north of England, especially the North East, has been a big loser under the Barnett formula. There is no conceptual way or policy mechanism by which the needs of the north of England can be spelt out and dealt with. We have heard the statistics that show that gross domestic product, income per head, and so on, in the north and northeast of England are unfavourable, and the region receives no assistance under the Barnett formula.
That illustrates the same point. Devolution, local needs, local democracy and accountability are not recognised under the formula. However well-intentioned it was, its effect is to work against the spirit

233
of what is, after all, one of the Government's great triumphs—namely, the achievement of devolution and the recognition of the nationhood of Wales and Scotland.
The Barnett formula was conceived as a way of giving governments a quiet life. There are many reasons for that at a time of great complexity. However, it has not achieved that. As we have heard, it has produced problems in Northern Ireland; others far more knowledgeable than I will speak about Scotland; it has been disadvantageous to Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned the effect of objective one. The Barnett formula was bypassed so that objective one funding could reach Wales at all. Repeated bypassing of the formula has helped to make it increasingly ineffective. Professor Hazell of the constitutional unit recently observed that, for Wales and for many parts of England, the Barnett formula has become the Barnett squeeze. That squeeze is likely to be felt shortly in Scotland and, perhaps more damagingly, in Northern Ireland.
There is therefore a strong case for a change in the Barnett formula. I suggest that that change should be deferred for a while. At present, in Northern Ireland, it could be catastrophic to hold a prolonged argument between Belfast and Westminster. The Barnett formula should be dealt with as St Augustine dealt with chastity: it should be enthusiastically endorsed but prudently deferred.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make my maiden speech on the Barnett formula. It is a privilege to take part in this debate with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself. I had planned to make a 10-minute speech, but it has been cut to five minutes.
Autobiographically, I am lucky to be here at all, because my father was the youngest of seven and my mother was the youngest of six. I am proud to be a Welshman. My family, as my name betrays, has been in Wales for five generations. They were originally blacksmiths in Cyfartha ironworks in Merthyr Tydfil and made thousands of wrought iron gates for nonconformist chapels throughout Wales. They were also musicians, conducting the famous Cyfartha brass band and won a competition at the Great Exhibition of 1851 so doing; but I must move on because that was extinguished in the Great Depression. My family worked in both industrial and rural Wales and my maternal grandfather was orphaned at the age of nine on the family farm.
My career spans both industry and education as an agricultural economist and I entered politics later in life. Suffice it to say, before becoming leader of the party in the Commons, I fought seven elections, won three and had eight recounts. There we are; it has been a very invigorating political life.
It is inspiring to speak in this Chamber, but I must now turn to the two questions I want to address. One of them I must ask with due respect to my former
234
constituency, Brecon and Radnorshire, which is the most beautiful in Britain. It was earlier this year struck by the dreadful foot and mouth disease. The experience was doubly galling for me because I was in Northumberland in 1967 and saw the terrible and tragic circumstances there, and I never wanted to see the disease rear its ugly head again.
I cannot compliment the Government on their handling of the disease. I coined the description "lamentable" long before Devon County Council. I described the lack of MAFF communications as "lamentable" over the proposed Eppynt mountain burial site in the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency last April. Suffice it to say that after seven hours on a mobile telephone, I achieved a meeting between farmers and a Minister at 11.30 at night in Brecon barracks. We persuaded the Government to abandon that site on geological grounds. Many families and children have been heartbroken by what has happened and a full public inquiry is essential to sort the matter out.
Rurality and farming impinge on the Barnett formula. That is especially so in Wales where population sparsity and urban deprivation—for example, in the valleys—predominate. The formula allocates and allows for changes in public expenditure in Wales, Scotland and England, but does not take regional inequalities into consideration.
The criticisms of the Barnett formula are that it is too crude because it is based on population statistics and results in per capita allocations. It ignores differences in health; rurality and sparsity of population; urban deprivation; lack of transport infrastructure; and, to a large extent, low wages. It does not reflect the changes in relative prosperity since 1978—there is no question about that.
When one looks at the GDP figures, particularly those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in relation to 1999, one sees that the differences in the inequalities between Wales, Scotland and north-east England stand out starkly. North-east England and Wales account for just over 80 per cent of GDP while the proportion relating to Wales has declined by 10 per cent in the past 20 years. A new needs-based formula is absolutely vital to take account of the cost of providing services to sparsely populated areas on the one hand and to deprived and congested urban areas on the other. They have been blighted by poverty and social exclusion, particularly in Wales—I am also familiar with north-east England—with poor health and low wages.
The solutions we ought to be discussing today are ones which involve positive change. World-wide models are available; for example, from Germany and Australia. In Australia, the Commonwealth Grants Commission aims to secure equality and diversity to its federal states. Liberal Democrats propose a finance commission for the UK nations, which would have "constitutional status". That replacement device would introduce a revenue distribution formula and the Government should come forward and correct the inequalities within the regions and nations of the

235
United Kingdom. I call on the Government to embrace such a proposal because we must stem the tide of urban and rural poverty which now affects important parts of the UK.
Finally, economic equality of opportunity must surely be the battle-cry for our deprived communities and their citizens.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, on the high quality of his maiden speech. We have known each other since he was first elected as Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire in 1985. I am sure that the whole House will look forward to his future participation in our proceedings.
I must also compliment the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on securing the debate. It is more timely now than when he first called for it in 1997. More devolution is in the wind, the macro-economic scene is changing and his formula is approaching its silver wedding. Successive governments have been wedded to it for so long because it has provided them with a comparatively simple way of ensuring that each of the countries of the United Kingdom receives its population share of annual increases in public expenditure relevant to its block.
The Government claim that the formula is fair—and it is in principle—but there was that lengthy period when the population share figures used were wrong. The result was that Scotland received 1 per cent more than its due and Wales received 0.14 per cent less at the time of the great correction in 1992. It is too late for us to say, "Wales was robbed". The Government are now committed to annual revision. That sounds right, provided that the revision is unbiased. I, too, would like assurances about it.
The use of the wrong figures vitiated the intended convergent effect of the formula and has led some people to describe its proper working in future as the "Barnett squeeze". In Wales, we should be careful about that. Perhaps we should call it more endearingly the "Barnett hug" because we may benefit from its operation in years to come.
Criticism of the wide divergence in per capita spending across the UK should be levelled at the inherited underlying baselines rather than at the formula itself and at the bypassing of the formula by special items of government expenditure outside the block. Throughout the years there has been much talk about the need to base regional expenditure on needs assessment. Indeed, such a study was carried out in the late 1970s and it concluded that per capita expenditure in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have to be substantially higher than in England in order to provide a comparable level of service in the six areas examined in 1976–77.
I shall not quote those antiquated figures, except to say that Wales would have received more on a needs basis—that it did in 1976–77—and Scotland would have received less. Much has changed since those days. The problem—and I give due warning—of providing
236
an acceptable needs-based formula has not diminished. As those who have had experience of local government finance know only too well, there would be endless arguments about the factors to be taken into account and the weighting attributed to them; for example, sparsity, morbidity and so forth.
Should the Government review the Barnett formula? I suspect that the Minister who is to reply will say that the Treasury is always reviewing its working. Since the year 2000 we have had expenditure figures for the English regions, which are not at all happy with the outcomes. If there is to be more devolution to the English regions, a funding formula will have to be found in order to ensure parity of treatment.
Personally, I should like to see a closer relationship between per capita spending by the Government and disposable household income per head. Regions with most income should have least government support and those with least income per head should have most support. That seems right to me. Such a correlation is currently lacking. Wales would come out of it well as, indeed, it would on a GDP basis, which is another possibility.
5 p.m.
Lord Radice: My Lords, I begin by thanking, noble Lords and the staff of this House for their very warm welcome. If this is the aristocratic embrace, then there is a lot to be said for it.
I say at the outset what a great honour it is to take part in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Barnett, at whose feet I used to sit when I was a rookie Member of Parliament and he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour governments of the 1970s. I doubt, however, whether any of us, including my noble friend, ever imagined that one of his main claims to fame would be the so-called "Barnett formula". Incidentally, I note that it does not even rate a mention in his excellent account of his stewardship of public spending. Therefore, perhaps he was not aware of the controversy which would arise.
However, of course, it is now a matter of controversy. For example, in the North East, which I represented in Parliament for 28 years, there is a widely supported campaign if not to abolish the formula then certainly to reform it radically. The campaign for the English regions takes a similar position. It calls for a replacement of the Barnett formula and the establishment of a new mechanism to distribute public money on the grounds that the present system is over-generous to Scotland and discriminates against the English regions.
It may well be that some of the criticisms of the Barnett formula have been unfair, as was pointed out in the preliminary investigation by the Treasury Select Committee of which I was then chairman. As my noble friend pointed out, it is not always understood that the Barnett formula does not determine the overall size of the budget in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; it is all about apportioning the increases in public spending on comparable programmes between the countries of the UK on the basis of population.

237
Of course, as a short-term solution, the Barnett formula made a good deal of sense because we believed that we were going to get devolution. It provided an agreed way of allocating increases without unseemly annual haggling. It was also expected to provide over a period of time a mechanism for convergence in spending per head between the countries of the UK. However, for a number of reasons which I do not have time to address at the moment, that convergence has not happened.
Therefore, partly as the result of an initial pattern of public spending and partly due to the way that Barnett has worked in practice, the spending differences between, on the one hand, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, on the other hand, England, including, of course, the English regions, has remained pretty well the same. Indeed, according to the latest public expenditure statistical analysis, if one takes UK expenditure as 100, England is 96, Scotland is 118, Wales is 113 and Northern Ireland is 133. If one then starts to place the English regions on the index, only London with 113, the North East with 109 and the North West with 104 are above 100.
Of course, there may be strong arguments for high public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I shall not raise that issue. But many of those arguments apply also to the English regions. My own region, the North East, which I know best, has lower GDP per head, higher unemployment and greater educational problems. It is very difficult to justify the following pattern of educational spending: £686 per head in the North East compared with £863 per head in Scotland. Perhaps there are good reasons for that, but I believe that people in the North East would like to know what those reasons are.
I believe that the time has now come for a fresh appraisal. It should be possible to devise a mechanism which takes more account of needs and brings the English regions into the equation as well. Therefore, I believe that the exercise should draw on the experience of the standard spending assessment. We have a model for local government expenditure. It is based on population, but it takes additional needs into account.
I consider it to be essential both for the legitimacy of public spending and for the strength of the Union that all parts of the UK should believe that the distribution system is fair. That is the case for change which I believe the Government should now address. I thank noble Lords for their attention.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Radice, on an excellent maiden speech. He has shown himself to be a member of a very select club of people who understand what the Barnett formula is about. Over a number of years I listened to his excellent contributions in another place, and I am sure that this place will benefit greatly from his wisdom and knowledge.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, first, on securing the debate and, secondly, on the very skilful and elegant way in which he indulged in what
238
was—perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for describing it—nothing less than a political heist. The noble Lord is intent on doing what he set out to do when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury; that is, to grab money from Scotland for the north-east of England. That was the game.
As the noble Lord, Lord Radice, pointed out, the intention of the Barnett formula was to produce convergence and to remove what was seen as an anomaly between expenditure levels in Scotland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The reason that the noble Lord is dissatisfied with the operation of the Barnett formula is that it has not achieved its purpose. Its purpose was to reduce expenditure in Scotland relative to England. Indeed, that is why the Barnett formula was kept secret for two years and was revealed only by accident in a parliamentary Answer at that time.
Of course, the effect is that, if public expenditure increases, the gap between Scotland and England narrows and, at times when public expenditure is cut—I suspect that we may be embarking on that if we are not to see taxes go up—it produces divergence. The noble Lord and others spoke of the necessity of a needs assessment. I would counsel caution on the part of those who speak for Wales. My understanding is that a needs assessment, if carried out on the devolved matters for Wales and Scotland, would produce some very uncomfortable results.
When I was in the Scottish Office, I was told by my officials that a needs assessment would probably result in the Scottish Office budget being cut by £2.5 billion. They believed that the Treasury considered that it could be reduced by £4 billion. If that is the idea of Members opposite of how to make devolution work in Scotland, I believe that we should think again. It is nothing less than an insensitive raid in the tradition of the Border reivers which is likely to produce a vigorous response from north of the Border.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters if for no other reason than that the debate provides us with an opportunity to underline the very unsatisfactory way in which the Government introduced devolution in Scotland, the half-baked nature of the proposals and the failure to put in place a stable system of finance. Therefore, north of the Border Mr Henry McLeish is committing himself to paying teachers considerably more than they are paid in England for the McCrone proposals will result in expenditure of well over £0.5 billion, to introducing new standards of care for the elderly north of the Border, and to having different arrangements for tuition fees. At the same time, he is looking to England to continue to provide more relative per head of population than is the case in Scotland. That is bound to create the kind of tension which has brought the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to his feet complaining about the position relative to Scotland and England.
The Scottish nationalists are arguing that the Scottish Parliament should determine its own needs and raise its own taxes. That would put us straight into an argument about who owns North Sea oil and the

239
value of that oil, and would create the type of tensions and divisions which we do not need in our country at present.
I say to the Government that they did not think through the financing of devolution. That is why we are now in this mess. This afternoon we had yet another example of constitutional reform which has not been thought through and which threatens our democracy and the integrity of the United Kingdom. I say to the noble Lord that we should let the formula alone; in time it will do the job that he intended. To embark upon a needs assessment will set one part of the United Kingdom against another. The only beneficiaries will be the nationalists and those who wish to divide and break up our country.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, speaking as a Scot, I cannot help thinking that the fact that the Barnett formula is simultaneously being attacked by some because it gives Scotland too much and by others—in Scotland—because it gives Scotland less than its due, means that the chances are that it might have got things more or less right.
The Barnett formula has provided stable settlements under successive governments for more than 20 years. It is fair because it gives the same overall increases for devolved programmes per head of the population in all four parts of the United Kingdom. It has for the past 20 years been the mechanism for determining changes in the assigned budgets of the three territorial departments, and it continues to operate under devolution. Within their assigned budgets, it is for the devolved administrations to determine their own priorities for allocating their budgets.
The Barnett formula automatically applies a population-based proportionate share of any increase in comparable English spending programmes during a spending review to the Scottish assigned budget, which was formerly known as the Scottish block.
I put it to noble Lords that it is very important to maintain continuity and stability in a period of rapid change. The commitment in the devolution White Paper, Scotland's Parliament, that the Barnett formula arrangements would not be changed without a full assessment of relative needs in the two countries reflects, as does so much of the White Paper, the conclusions of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. That convention brought together all strands of Scottish political and civic society except, for their own peculiar reasons, the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives—the SNP because it saw in the successful establishment of a Scottish Parliament its own nemesis, and the Scottish Conservatives because they considered a Scottish Parliament to be anathema.
I should declare an interest—I do so with some pride. I was the final co-chair of the convention, along with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. The convention worked from 1988 to produce, in 1995, the document that was the basis for the White Paper and the subsequent Scotland Act. Under the heading, "Secure and stable finance", it recommended the
240
continuation of the principle of equalisation and of the Barnett formula as the basis for the allocation of Scotland's fair share of the UK's resources. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to hear that I do not agree with a word that he said about the way in which devolution was brought about in Scotland. The convention believed that those arrangements would help to guarantee the Parliament's income on a long-term, stable basis and that its income would not require annual negotiation.
That was good thinking then, and it is good thinking now. Nobody says that the Barnett formula is cast in concrete for ever—because it is population based, and because populations fluctuate, it is clearly not at all set in concrete. The Government's spending plans have been set down and agreed for the years until 2004. That includes the spending plans for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There seem to be no plans to change them or to scrap or review the Barnett formula. I am happy about that because it provides the kind of stability that is necessary in these early days of devolution and of seismic constitutional changes. I say to my noble friend Lord Barnett, with the greatest of affection and respect, that it seems to be madness, just over one year into devolution, to think about rocking the financial boat.
During the general election campaign, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke in May of this year on radio in Scotland. He said:
"I support the Barnett formula. I think it is the right way in order to make sure we get a fair settlement for the UK. I have said we have no plans to change the Barnett formula and I have supported it because I think it is the best and fairest way to distribute resources".
My Lords, I agree with him.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, there cannot be many instances of a debate that is initiated by a noble Lord on the need to revise a formula that bears his own name. I congratulate my noble friend on so doing.
When I was Secretary of State for Wales and my noble friend was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was one of his first victims, but I lived to tell the tale. The apportionment of public expenditure was done in a series of bilaterals, with each spending Minister. If one was a multi-functional Minister, as I was, one attended a kind of modern Spanish Inquisition, which involved if not death by 1,000 cuts then at least the perception of it. My noble friend's saving grace was that he did it all with a great smile. If his victim left his room also smiling, it was a smile of relief that my noble friend had not abolished his victim's offices and confiscated the seals of office.
When I was called to those painful meetings with my noble friend, there was no Barnett formula. It is not even discussed in my noble friend's most entertaining book, Inside the Treasury. I believe that we argued about means and needs based on history, as the Treasury puts it. Even if they were one-sided arguments, my noble friend records very faithfully in his book his victories and his defeats.

241
It is important to remember that the formula governs only changes in expenditure; it guarantees that Wales, for example, receives a population-based share of any increase—or, as I found in my time, decrease—in spending by a relevant UK department. However, the formula does not set the baseline for spending in Wales. That reflects the position before the formula was set up. In Wales, higher levels of public expenditure reflect longstanding problems of deprivation and poverty. It is vitally important to distinguish the two components in the allocation of money. The advantage of some kind of formula is that it is a means of calculating the lump sum that is given to the Assembly. Once granted—this is fundamental to devolution—the Assembly makes it own budgetary decisions within the financial framework. It no longer has to argue or haggle with the Treasury.
Without some kind of formula, the Assembly would be open to second-guessing by the UK Government. I have no objection in principle to reviewing or revising the formula, but I suspect that that would only be tinkering so far as concerns Wales. There has to be some kind of formula—otherwise, one is in danger of undermining the whole mechanism and philosophy of devolution.
The baseline of expenditure may well be over-ripe for examination. That is very important. The extent of the needs of yesterday are not necessarily those of today. As the baseline cannot be set in stone for ever there will come a time when either the UK Government and the Assembly together, or, after full consultation, some independent body will have to examine the baseline. We have referred to an example of overriding—indeed, of breaking—Barnett; it involves the provisioning of Treasury funds to trigger the EC provision for objective one. Objective one funding was simply the identification of need, accepted by the EC and not covered by existing expenditure allocations.
The only argument within Wales is about the extent of funding. That is against a background that public spending in Wales, through the Welsh block, is now growing marginally faster than public spending in general, including a total of £3.4 billion extra spending in the July 2000 review, which is important. The principle of objective one funding—the breaking of the Barnett formula—underlines the need for an examination of the baseline itself.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the number of speakers who have put their names down to participate in this debate could be a measure of the enduring interest in the subject or a determination to understand what it is all about. The two words "Barnett formula" crop up on a regular basis in this House, in the more serious articles in the printed media and from time to time in the broadcasting media. I do not believe that I am unique in having been somewhat ignorant of what it is all about, but no longer. Thanks to the action of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in winning the ballot for
242
this debate, we have all had to do a fair amount of research and to rid our minds of misconceptions about the formula.
In the interests of brevity, I want to make two points, ask one question and make one somewhat facetious observation. First, it seems quite incredible that there has been no needs-based assessment of the Barnett formula since 1978. That is quite unbelievable. That would be somewhat—but only somewhat—acceptable if the parameters of the formula were unchanging. In the case of the formula, the fundamental basis on which it was fixed; namely, the population relativities of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, is ever-changing as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett has shown. I am sure that any sensible business organisation, on a regular, probably an annual basis, would consider disparities in its budget of a similar nature to the formula; for example, allocation of special sums to cover development costs or to attempt to iron out inherent discrepancies. The allocation of the national budget is even more important, not least in the quantum. It really should be reviewed on a regular basis. In 1998, the Treasury Select Committee of another place stated that it was,
"disappointed that no Government studies have been made in relation to the appropriateness of the Barnett Formula and how it relates to needs".
Such studies are long overdue.
Secondly, the constitutional changes introduced by this Government in the area of devolution of Scotland and Wales should have led to a root and branch examination of what could be termed "grey areas". As that was not done, it should be done, and speedily, if only to remove the perception that the Government are less than even-handed in their treatment of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Several noble Lords have already drawn attention to the situation in the North East.
I now come to my question to the Minister. The very existence of the formula, working it out, managing it, dealing with parliamentary questions about it and updating statistics, probably does not cost much to administer. However, I am sure that a sole junior official in the Treasury or the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office does not sort it out alone. I would be prepared to bet that there are a series of meetings, papers prepared, arguments undertaken and rebutted all in the name of the Barnett formula. Has the Minister any idea of the actual costs of that on an annual basis? I would also like an idea of the opportunity costs, but I appreciate that that may be a little more difficult.
My somewhat facetious observation relates to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I fear that he is in danger of slipping into oblivion if a review of his formula resulted in the said formula being abolished. Perhaps we should consider giving him a cross-party, inter-parliamentary task to ensure that his name shall continue to be attached to a concept that is difficult to understand, but which will be known by many for at least the next 25 years.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, Keynes had a general theory, Planck had his constant, Heisenberg his principle, Euler his equation, Fermat his last theorem and my noble friend has his formula. I ask my noble friend whether he has noticed that of the 19 Back Benchers who are taking part in the debate, 14 come from Wales or Scotland. I hasten to add, of course, that each of their contributions is entirely objective and dispassionate.
Should public expenditure be redistributed, especially as the British tax system no longer is? My answer is unequivocally yes. Fundamentally it should be redistributed between individuals and families. We have to ask whether that aim can be met by focussing on regions or other measures of area. The problem is that in concentrating on large regions one may miss important pockets of need within them. Moreover, without regional government we have no mechanism for concentrating on those important pockets.
Subject to that, it seems to me overwhelmingly obvious that a formula based on population is not satisfactory and in no circumstances could it possibly be satisfactory. My noble friend accepted that by saying that the formula was intended to be approximately population-based but that it was intended as a stop-gap until a needs-based system came into operation. Again, I entirely agree with him. It was intended to do that but it is about time we had the appropriate formula.
What criteria would be better? Clearly, regional GDP per head is one possible criterion. My view is that regional unemployment would be another to look at and regional poverty would be a third. I say that, although I also add the point that I am generally doubtful about the accuracy—if I can put it that way—of regional statistics. Indeed, any change that we make would, first, require major work on reassuring ourselves that the statistics are right. We need better statistics and appropriate criteria that turn out to be needs-based.
The criteria that I have mentioned give different answers. On GDP every noble Lord has pointed out that Scotland is above average relative to the median. On the other hand, it is also worth pointing out that Scotland is above average—in this case I mean worse—in relation to unemployment. If that is one's criterion, one would approach Scotland in a different way. Of course, Wales and Northern Ireland are both worse on the GDP figure per head and on the unemployment figure.
We then have the special case of the North East. Although prima facie on a needs-basis it does not receive enough public expenditure, that must be the result of central government policy rather than anything to do with the formula. It is probably an unintended result, but there is no doubt that it is a result.
My noble friend referred to the expression "identifiable general government expenditure". To use a rather crude phrase, that is a rather dicey concept on which to base a policy.
244
Like the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I intend to be brief. I have one suggestion about how to deal with the problem that concerns us all, which is a change in government policy of a different sort: namely, to restore full employment to the economy. There is still overwhelming evidence that the main cause of poverty in our country is long-term unemployment. I hope that a policy to remove long-term unemployment would commend itself to all noble Lords although in the end—I say this with great regret—it would mean that formulae like the Barnett formula became irrelevant.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, for most of my life I have lived in the South East of England, but now my home is in the North East. For the past two years I have been getting to know that part of the country. I have done that through reading local newspapers and listening to broadcasts. It does not take one long to realise that the people of the North East feel extremely hard done by when it comes to financial settlements from government. I live near the Scottish Border, so when I cross the Border I can see that the quality of local services are better.
When the Barnett formula was introduced, it was a temporary measure. Other noble Lords have detailed the figures for the North East, so I shall not repeat them. When the formula was introduced, Scotland had the lowest gross domestic product per head. However, it is a fact that the lowest GDP per head–77 per cent of the UK average—is now in the North East. If one considers other indicators alongside it, it is no surprise that there has been a real clamour in the North East for regional government. The North East has a convention based on similar arrangements to those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and is well on the way to arguing a very good case for regional government.
Just before and during the local elections, the Labour Party promised that in the first few months of the Government's second term there would be a Green Paper on regional government. I suggest that that will be a good opportunity to look at how to deal with the regional disparities that particularly affect the North East.
Last week saw the publication of a fairly damning report by the Regional Studies Association. It accuses new Labour of adopting neo-Thatcherite policies towards the North East and is a fairly devastating critique of the Government's record in that region. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that perhaps the problem in the regions was the policies of the Government. I do not have time to go into that in detail, but for me one of the most telling statistics in the report is the need for 180,000 jobs in the North East if employment levels are to match those in the South East. But the report also points out that on the basis of an annual increase of 0.5 per cent, which is the growth envisaged in this year's enterprise White Paper, it will take 35 years to produce those 180,000 new jobs in the North East.

245
I believe that the evidence in that paper backs all the demands in the North East for a better way to deal with the problems in that area. Hugh Morgan-Williams, vice-chair of North CBI, has called for money to be found from a reform of government spending rules. I do not have time to go into what we should do and how the formula should be replaced. I hope that my noble friend Lord Newby will have more time to say something about that. But I believe that all noble Lords in the Chamber agree that the formula must be needs-based and that we all recognise that needs change and that we must also look at other indicators, such as health, poverty and education. From my brief time in the region, I know that for those who live in the North East reform of the Barnett formula cannot come too soon.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, there is little doubt that the Barnett formula has had a pretty bad press recently, although it has helped to keep my friend Professor Heald and others in gainful employment for some years. In Scotland it tends to be seen as a means by which Scotland's share of UK expenditure is being excessively squeezed. In some parts of England it is seen as a means by which Scottish expenditure is maintained at a higher level than can be reasonably justified, so there are very conflicting perceptions of the effect of the formula.
The truth is slightly different. The formula provides a means by which, admittedly over time, expenditure between Scotland and England can be made to converge in a way that avoids major disruption and dislocation. Part of the problem about the general debate, not today's, is the confusion about what the Barnett formula is all about. I believe that that has been cleared up very satisfactorily during the course of today's debate. But an important point to bear in mind is that it means in effect that although public expenditure in Scotland will increase it will do so more slowly than in England.
It is also true that convergence has not occurred at the rate originally expected. I believe that that is due to two major factors: first, the extent to which, particularly in the 1980s, it was necessary to bypass the formula to fund significant public sector wage settlements; and, secondly, Scotland's higher than expected population decline over the period. But we must remember that a decline in population does not of itself generate proportional cost savings.
A major component of the Barnett formula's bad press, which has emerged during the course of today's debate, is the belief on the part of some English regions that they are being short-changed as a result. But from the perspective of English regional expenditure to concentrate on Scotland's level of expenditure is very much a blind alley. Quite simply, any reduction in Scottish expenditure would make precious little impact on the amount available to deal with imbalances within England. Regional imbalances and the claims of the North East, North West and far
246
South West are not a product of the Barnett formula or any Scottish-English debate; rather, they are essentially an internal English matter and are determined by decisions made within Whitehall departments.
If we are to move to a more needs-based approach—I share the caution of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about pursuing that particular route—a good deal more work must be done. It is not as simple as it may seem initially. We must do more work on expenditure drivers, but the process of establishing the needs base will require a degree of credibility and transparency. Any approach must take into account such factors as geography, to which my noble friend Lord Barnett referred. Reference has also been made to sparsity, which is undoubtedly a cost driver; demography, particularly in the form of the relative size of the dependent population; and the differential participation in the major public services such as health and education.
Any needs assessment must carry a very high degree of credibility which I believe would arise only if it was done by an independent body. I am afraid that any exercise carried out by the Treasury would not carry that credibility.
In the short term it is important that debates like today's are better informed. It is here that I make a plea to the Minister. The present PESA figures are of little value. Their level of aggregation is too high to enable one to understand what is happening within programmes. At the same time, some lines, such as that concerned with housing, are virtually useless in trying to understand what is going on. Most importantly, as the debate deepens we shall require greater transparency. For example, we simply do not have a series of comparable English expenditure figures that allows us to follow through the numerical operation of the formula. That is a basic requirement of any such debate. I hope that the Treasury will loosen up to some extent and make such figures available in the near future.
By all means, the approach should be based on needs assessment, but let us do it carefully because there are significant pitfalls, both methodological and political, in going down that route. In the meantime, I believe that there is very little need to cast Barnett aside in the near future.
5.39 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on securing this debate. I have always thought that the noble Lord achieved the true mark of genius by reducing an extremely complicated matter down to a level that a Scottish farmer, like myself, might almost comprehend. I hope that I shall not become disillusioned as the discussion goes on. I declare my interest in farming. Noble Lords will see why as I proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned that the 1976/1977 Treasury study concluded that Scotland required funding that was 16 per cent higher than the UK per capita level.

247
Unfortunately, as many noble Lords have pointed out, those figures do not translate into meaningful guidelines for the present day because so many things have changed. We possibly need to have a further look at needs assessment.
Professor Midwinter of Strathclyde University made a submission to the Treasury Committee's second report in 1997. He raised the point that the study did not include spending on agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry and that these now have to be included in the Scottish calculations, particularly following on from the devolution arrangements. He also stated that the per capita figures at that time included payments for social security and other items that were completely outside the Scottish block grant and the Barnett formula. Is that a change also from the time of the earlier assessment?
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred to the Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses for 2000–2001 showing that on a per capita basis Scotland's funding exceeds other regions and detailing several areas such as roads, environmental services, trade and industry. Agriculture, food and forestry are one of the major gaps. Given the current support levels for agriculture, there is a certain inevitability in that direction. I draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that agriculture's contribution to GDP in Scotland is 1.3 per cent whereas in England it is only 0.8 per cent. Similarly, the number of those employed in agriculture in Scotland is 3 per cent as against 1.7 per cent in England. If the Government want to revisit the question of Scottish funding, no doubt they will have to come up with an entirely new calculation of relative need.
My only worry about those tables is that I understand they contain moneys received from Europe. I question whether that should be taken into account for agriculture. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the Treasury has also included the payments received under the various European structural funds such as objectives 1, 2 and 5b.
My reason for inquiring about that matter is that these funds are not a direct cost to the Treasury. In some ways it is reclaiming some of the money we have already paid to the European institutions and should be regarded in a slightly different light from moneys which are a direct burden on the taxpayer. I ask the Minister whether the regional totals of EU money received can be made available so that this factor can be more easily understood.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Elder: My Lords, it is given to few, even in this House, to have the near immortality of a formula named after them. My noble friend Lord Barnett has that claim, but he has now made it clear that he would be happy to let the substance of the claim drop, even if he needs to keep the name itself. I intend to argue that he should be prepared to accept the fame it offers in its present form for some time to come.
248
I argue that the reasons that led to the institution of the Barnett formula are still there and valid; and that while there may be issues about the particular statistics used, they do not outweigh the advantages which the status quo allows.
I say in passing in response to the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that during my period in the Scottish Office as a special adviser, I did not come across rooms filled with people beavering away and trying to work out what the Barnett formula was, or sending papers to anyone. However, if we go down the road—it may well be sensible—suggested by my noble friend Lord Peston, many people will be working very hard in such rooms in the Scottish Office. Perhaps even more significantly, many economists will be in work as well.
The Barnett formula was introduced to overcome the need for the bruising annual debate about the allocation of spending to the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In those days, decisions about spending priorities were devolved to the appropriate Secretaries of State and the government departments who then oversaw a wide range of expenditures. It was always up to the Secretary of State to decide where that money was spent. It did not have to match expenditure in corresponding English departments. That system has been built into the present settlement of the devolved parliament and assemblies. Removing the Barnett formula would mean that some alternative would have to be found. We would need that if we were to avoid a return to the annual round of bickering. That would benefit neither side. The underlying problem that led to the creation of the Barnett formula over 20 years ago has not gone away.
The Barnett formula deals with changes. The bulk of the expenditure available to the Scottish Parliament comes from the underlying block, as it used to be known; it is the assigned budget now. That was originally decided on the basis of an assessment of need. That properly took account of the additional costs involved in providing services in remote parts of the country. It made proper allowance for the fact that more Scots chose to send their children to local authority schools, use the NHS and live in public sector housing than was the case, overall, in England. The overall intention was to achieve equality of service provision—not, it must be emphasised, equal expenditure per head—across the country. It has proved flexible, and, because it gives the same overall increases in expenditure for devolved expenditure matters across the country, it has been generally perceived as fair.
Where there are issues of fairness, I would argue that they relate not so much between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the one hand and England on the other, but between the richer and the poorer regions of the United Kingdom, wherever they are. Even taking account of that, there are now substantial payments—the most significant perhaps being housing benefit, although there are others such as the working families' tax credit—which mean that sometimes the basic underlying figures of Barnett need to be adjusted to

249
give a more valid comparison. That is where the kind of work being talked about by my noble friends Lord Sewel and Lord Peston is so important.
The Barnett formula was intended, in time, to bring about a convergence in expenditure between Scotland and England. With substantial rises in public expenditure now flowing through, that convergence will become real in a way that was not the case when rises in public expenditure were more limited. Ironically, it is only now that Barnett has been given a chance to work that criticism of it has become so vocal.
During the general election earlier this year, the Prime Minister made his views clear, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Ramsay. I wholeheartedly agree with his support. The position has not changed since then. I believe that whatever the views of my noble friend Lord Barnett, his formula has much to recommend it and should remain for some time to come.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the formula, even as adjusted over the years, simply is no longer suitable. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, about devolution. With devolution one cannot base block funding for the devolved administration on what Westminster decides for equivalent services in England. One simply cannot do that. For one thing, services will become less and less equivalent. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, there are many devolved functions which are not included in the formula.
I am told by colleagues who are Members of the Scots Parliament that their budget meetings when they allocate the block grant are unnecessarily difficult to follow for elected members, let alone for the public. So the Government now must produce a single method for the overall funding of devolved administrations, not just the part currently covered by Barnett. That system must be stable and one that will last for a number of years ahead.
In Scotland it should include surely the cost of the parliament, the running costs of the building and ancillary buildings, as well as the salaries of MSPs, civil servants, special advisers—of which there are now 11 and the number is rising—and other staff. Moreover, the figure should be adjusted for any change in the responsibilities of these devolved administrations resulting from decisions made at Westminster.
I shall cite only two examples to illustrate what I mean, although I wish there was time for more. I understand that the cost of Scotland's new parliament building is being met by a total freeze on new road building in Scotland, however great the need for those roads. Yet the choice of the expensive Holyrood site, as opposed to the far more economical Calton Hill proposal, along with the choice of architect and approval of his original plan, were Westminster decisions made before devolution took
250
effect. The cost has now risen from the £10 million originally mentioned to something in the order of £300 million. Furthermore, one contractor has recently gone into receivership. That puts the Dome in the shade. The lack of control has stemmed from Holyrood, but the original costly decisions were those of Westminster. Will Westminster make any financial recompense to the Scots Parliament, or will it not? At present, we cannot tell.
My second example is one that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. The Scottish Executive wants to provide free personal care for the elderly, an exceedingly expensive plan whose costs will mount massively in the future. MSPs and the Scottish electorate need to know whether the proposal will be funded entirely from the Scottish block or whether some Westminster funding will be added because of the reduced need for attendance allowance, a Westminster responsibility. At present, the matter is in dispute and there seems to be no formula for resolving it. In any case, MSPs need to be clear on what future funding will have to be found, or what the increase on the basic rate of income tax—with its consequent damage to Scotland's economy—will have to be. MSPs need to know this, but at present they cannot tell.
The divergence of decision making brought about by devolution, along with the effect that Westminster decisions may have on the devolved administrations, means that an entirely new funding system is required. It should be one much simpler and more transparent than the Barnett formula. Unlike my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, I had hoped that the Government would have thought this through before devolution ever took place. It is absolutely vital to the system. If they have done so, the sooner they make clear their plans, the better. If they have not done so, then the sooner they make up their minds, the better.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Barnett on raising this important topic for debate. I was brought up to believe that there are liars, damned liars and statisticians. All the statistics that have been referred to in our debate tell different stories, depending on how they are interpreted.
Other noble Lords have pointed out that, when the Barnett formula first came into being, Scotland's GDP was far lower than that of England. Now the position is reversed. But over that period Scotland has lost the motor car industry, the ship building industry, the mining industry and, I am sure, many others, yet the GDP is higher. I have to tell my noble friend Lord Barnett, fond though he may be of his formula, that it has little, if anything, to do with the improvement of GDP in Scotland. It may be that oil was the cause of it. Who knows? I simply point out that it may be one part of the equation which may not have been taken into account when examining this matter.

251
Many noble Lords have commented that the Barnett formula affects matters only at their margins. Nevertheless, the formula has become something of a totem. Depending on which year, the time of year and which part of the country is concerned, my noble friend Lord Barnett is cast either as the Good Fairy or the Wicked Witch. In some cases, he may be the Good Fairy and the Wicked Witch simultaneously. In Scotland, so long as it appears that its portion of the budget is not reducing, or is possibly increasing, then my noble friend is the Good Fairy. If the portion moves the other way, he becomes the Wicked Witch.
I understand perfectly the view taken by those in the North East and the North West of England, and even in parts of London. They deeply object to the difference per capita made available by the Government. Unfortunately, as was pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon, those objections are misdirected. It is not the Barnett formula at fault, but the baseline. Once we examine the baseline for the distribution of expenditure, boy, are we in trouble. The furore over reform of your Lordships' House would look like a storm in a teacup—a saucer—in comparison with attempts to re-examine the general basic distribution of public expenditure.
Nevertheless, it has to be done. No one who claims to be a socialist, as I still claim to be, can argue that things should never change. The whole point of instituting change is to direct help to where there is the greatest need. Paradoxically, even when circumstances are improved in Scotland, the North East or elsewhere, that does not diminish the amount of money needed to sustain such improvement.
Those of us who were councillors in Scotland some 40 years ago had absolutely no idea of the social deprivation being addressed by the local authority schemes that we were building at the time. We were right to start the work, but changed circumstances mean that those schemes need to be regenerated and renewed. The living standards of the local people are the most important consideration.
I believe that much of the rest of what I wanted to say has already been said, although my late and very dear friend Lord Shepherd used to say, "Ah, but not everyone has said it yet". I shall finish on this note: I hope that the House and the Government will not become bogged down in abstract arguments over formulas and statistics. We are all in government for only one purpose; that is, to try to improve the lives of the people of the different nations of the United Kingdom. If we bear that in mind, perhaps we shall get somewhere. However, I certainly do not believe that rushing in to bring about change without proper thought will do anyone any good.
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as the ninth speaker from Scotland taking part in the debate, I am certain that everyone has already said all that is to be said. However, I want to talk about the effect the possible removal of what is generally known as the
252
Barnett formula would have on Scottish sovereignty and the Constitution. The advantageous funding for government activity in Scotland which the Barnett formula seems to represent is the current manifestation of the constitutional set-up. In short, the treaties which led to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and the Union of the Parliaments in 1707 ensured that Scotland would swap sovereignty for over-representation and economic advantage. Perhaps I should modify the term, "swap sovereignty", so that it becomes, "place sovereignty in a union state as a sovereign partner".
The ongoing evolution of that union state has led us to devolution, a finely balanced package of subordinated autonomy. The devolution scheme represents one of four options for Scotland, the others being a return to direct rule, a federal constitution and independence from the United Kingdom. The devolution package should not be tampered with. Its funding by grant from this Union Parliament must be maintained and must be generous. Otherwise, demand will evolve for federalism or independence.
Already there is talk of fiscal devolution; that is, the devolution of tax gathering beyond the limited tax varying powers which form part of the devolution package. I would argue that fiscal devolution is out with the scope of devolution. Fiscal devolution is in fact a part of federalism and, if adopted, would make the Scottish Parliament sovereign within its own scope and vires.
I believe that the people of Scotland, as sovereign partners, always have the right and opportunity to place their sovereignty wherever they wish. So far, those who seek to lead the people of Scotland away from the United Kingdom have only one valid argument: that Scotland has the right to leave the United Kingdom and should do so on principle. The second and more powerful argument, which is that Scotland would be better off outside the United Kingdom, is not valid and will not be so until the generous funding of government activity in Scotland comes to an end.
I believe that government activity at all levels in Scotland costs about £36 billion per annum, of which £20 billion is granted to the Scottish Parliament. I believe that Scotland raises about £33 billion in taxation. It is that shortfall of about £3 billion that separates from validity the argument that Scotland would be better off economically outside the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords will, of course, enjoy the irony of principle versus generous funding. They will also see the merit of not being too quick to kick away the devolution package and the consequent economic advantage that United Kingdom membership represents. If Scotland is reduced to some form of per capita parity with England, the separatists' second argument will begin to have validity.
The United Kingdom is one of Scotland's finest achievements. King James VI saw in the Great Britain over which he came to rule after 1603 huge advantages in terms of economy, trade and freedom from war,

253
although I must acknowledge that the 1603 settlement did not work out and that a somewhat paranoid Whig government insisted on an unwanted parliamentary union in 1707 and backed their insistence with threats of force. Now King James's dream is the reality that we know. Let us be aware of the risks that are involved in populist tamperings.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, like other speakers, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on initiating this debate. The number of speakers and the quality of their speeches demonstrate the tremendous interest in this subject in your Lordships' House. In the two and a half hours after this debate, the House will discuss such minor issues as mass destruction and global terrorism. It is notable that a much smaller number of your Lordships are interested in that matter, which is relatively secondary in comparison with the burning issue of the Barnett formula. I must also, of course, congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Radice and Lord Livsey, on their maiden speeches, which were excellent. We look forward to hearing from them further. I look forward particularly to having a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, about the respective cultural heritage that we share in the brass band world and about whether the tradition is stronger in South Wales than in West Yorkshire.
The resilience of the Barnett formula demonstrates at least two things about the British constitution: first, nothing lasts longer than the temporary; and, secondly, the pillars of our constitution are most often non-statutory. Although, as many people have said, the Barnett formula is not much understood outside the Chamber, its success relates to its elegant simplicity. It starts on the basis of an assessment or allocation of expenditure between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England that substantially—even if not by universal agreement—reflects needs. Then, by relating changes to population, it both takes the annual argument out of the question of who gets what, and, at least in theory, reduces inexorably, but slowly, the disparity between the different territories of the UK.
What are the problems? They have been eloquently addressed this afternoon. I should like to mention four of them. First, the annual increases in expenditure are not related to need and do not even pretend to be so. Even if one accepts the initial allocation between the different territorial parts of the UK, the annual changes take one very far away from any needs-based system.
Secondly, the basis on which the figures are built does not reflect the changes in relative prosperity that have taken place since 1978. That applies especially to the growing strength of the Scottish economy. In 1999, Scotland's GDP per head was higher than that not only of Wales and Northern Ireland, but of six out of the nine English regions. That is a measure of the success of the Scottish economy, which has occurred for a raft of reasons, of which I am sure that the
254
Barnett formula is only a part. That is a massive shift from the position in 1978 when the formula was established.
Thirdly, as we have heard, the formula has become more complicated. It has accreted barnacles, as it were, which make it less simple and therefore less elegant.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly in terms of politics, the combination of devolution to Scotland and Wales and the establishment of regional development authorities in England has thrown the whole question of territorial expenditure into a harsher light. The result is that everybody is complaining. In Scotland, the continued working of the formula is now being described disparagingly as the Barnett squeeze, as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. That must be distinguished from the Barnett hug mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. The squeeze is a bad thing, while the hug in Wales may be a good thing, but the Scots are clearly worried about the effect of the formula over a period.
In the northern regions of England, people increasingly ask why they should receive substantially lower expenditure than Scotland when they are poorer, their education attainment levels are lower and, on the basis of a number of indicators, they are more needy. In the South East and in London, the questions are the other way around. People there ask why they should subsidise Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the majority of the English regions when they are in need of higher rates of investment in transport, education and housing and when, in the case of London, there are pockets of extreme deprivation that are among the worst in the UK.
We now have a situation that the Barnett formula successfully sought for many years to avoid: namely, one in which all the regions and nations of the UK are at each other's throats about the level of expenditure that they are currently receiving. As we move towards devolution to the English regions, with elected regional assemblies, that cacophony will grow.
I think, therefore, that now is the time to be considering change. I disagreed very strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, when she said that it would be madness to rock the financial boat at this point. We may be only one year into the devolution settlement, but a number of English regions would argue that there have been 20 years of unfairness and that they have had enough of it. Certainly, I would have considerable sympathy with people from the North East who say that they are fed up with receiving more than £400 per annum less per head than their neighbours north of the Border. Even if such a disparity could be justified on the basis of need—and I do not believe that it could be—the current basis of allocating expenditure simply does not provide a justification for it. The question that many noble Lords have asked is this: if you are going to change it, how are you going to change it? Clearly, that is the most difficult part of the debate.
On these Benches, we have spent a considerable time trying to think of a way of making such change. Our view is that we need to establish a new institution,

255
which we have called a finance commission for the nations and regions. It should have the question of allocating expenditure very much as its remit. We believe that it should be chaired by a new Secretary of State for the nations and regions, and that it should be composed of representatives of the national parliaments and assemblies of the UK, along with representatives of regional assemblies in England. Its job would be to establish a new revenue distribution formula, or RDS. That is a terrible and inelegant phrase; I suspect that we should call it Barnett 2. It would establish a Barnett 2 formula that would take account of the factors to which a number of noble Lords have referred: GDP per head, health, poverty and education indicators, demography and the problems of providing services in areas with widely dispersed populations.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that getting it right is extremely difficult and that anything that is produced must be credible. Whether that means that it has to be produced independently of the Treasury I leave for another time.
Once you have decided on a new distribution formula, a key issue will be the timescale of implementation. To a certain extent, this is a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who was worried about cutting expenditure in Scotland. I do not believe that anyone would argue that we should cut expenditure. The aim would be for the whole country to achieve the high standards reached elsewhere, to be funded over a period by growth in the economy rather than by an increase in the tax burden or cuts in services. That will inevitably take time, but a phased change rather than a sudden, abrupt gear shift is the only way forward.
In the short term, and before we get to that point, the Government should allow the RDAs and, more generally, the English regions more flexibility in the way they allocate expenditure within their regions. The decision to have a single pot for the RDAs within England is a good move, but in whole swathes of expenditure—health and education are obviously the most prominent—there is absolutely no flexibility at regional level in how priorities are set and how regional strategies could be developed and implemented.
The debate has demonstrated the need for change. The Barnett formula has had a good innings but, frankly, it has not worn as well as its author. No one has claimed that finding a replacement will be easy, but a replacement must now be found. The debate has demonstrated the expertise in the House on this issue. I look forward to the debates we shall be having on devolution in England in the coming months, and the opportunities that that will give to look afresh at fashioning a Barnett 2.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for initiating the debate and for sending me on a voyage of discovery to find the reasons for the enviable and, as the noble Lord said, surprising longevity of his famous formula.
256
I share the affection and respect that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, has for the noble Lord, but I must tell him that when I first got involved in Treasury matters in your Lordships' House I was advised to steer clear of this topic at all costs. I was told that it was a treacherous sea with dangerous currents—and anyway the only person who knew anything about the Barnett formula was the noble Lord himself, so I should under no circumstances speak about it in case he may be listening.
I know that your Lordships will agree that we are very lucky in this House to hear from so many distinguished speakers who have such obvious expertise and experience in this subject. We have also been lucky to hear two wonderful maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Radice and Lord Livsey, from whom I hope we shall hear much more in the years ahead.
Blessed is the man who has a formula named after him. Some men or women have streets or avenues named after them; some a park or a bridge or even a town square; for the lucky few, an airport; or, in the rarest cases, a city. But to have a formula named after one, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, is very special. It is worthy of Galileo, Newton or Einstein—and there is the issue which perhaps lies at the heart of the debate today.
The noble Lord said that the formula is not strictly rational. But for something to be described as a formula at all gives it a disarmingly rational provenance; a scientific authority; a mathematical or mechanical certainty in which the noble Lord himself, as he said, is far too pragmatic to have ever believed.
The reality of regional funding is that it does not take place under laboratory conditions. That is why we find that, for some, the Barnett formula is the Holy Grail and is therefore untouchable, and for others—especially following devolution and especially in some of the English regions—the formula perpetrates a grotesque injustice and has legitimised an intolerable economic discrimination against some regions for more than 20 years.
The former Prime Minister, John Major, said that he always,
"feared that by exposing the reality of the favourable spending treatment given to Scotland, devolution would stir up latent English nationalist resentment, leading to a backlash".
That seems to be exactly what has happened.
So, like the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, people look at, for example, the North's level of unemployment and its deprived areas, and see those as the price paid while successive governments over the years satisfied other UK regions' political priorities with the extra Barnett money. These critics say that Barnett has made possible over payments by Wales and Scotland to lure industry away from the North.
But, by contrast, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, some Scots would happily consign the formula to history in return for the reclamation of confiscated Scottish assets such as North Sea oil. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said something similar about Welsh tax payments to Westminster. Certainly, Mr Salmond of

257
the SNP puts the annual subsidy from Scotland to the Treasury at £1.2 billion and says that the starting point for this debate should be,
"the indisputable fact that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK—not the other way round".
That is just the start of the disagreements that confront us in this debate. For some people, as the noble Lord, Lord Radice, said, the charm of the formula is that it will achieve convergence. I asked some statistical experts whether they could tell me when this convergence would take place. I got a range of opinions, from about three years to about 30 years. It would seem that views on Barnett convergence are as varied as views on euro convergence.
For others, the aim is precisely the opposite of convergence; it is to preserve, or even expand, the disparity because of a higher order good which the inequality is thought to serve. This, of course, is the unequal need of the regions, which they say the formula does, or should, or should better reflect.
Would it not be wonderful if political differences such as these could be settled by reference to a scientific formula? Sadly, that is not possible. It is an inconvenient and stubborn fact that outside Newton's universe, where rational formulae really do govern reality, the world of the Barnett formula is conditioned by perception. One of Tom Stoppard's characters explained that, although it appeared to a casual observer standing on the platform at Paddington station that the train had left Paddington, in fact,
"All the observable phenomena indicated that Paddington had left the train".
We should remember Professor Popper's warning that even in the natural sciences there is no such thing as final proof of a formula because the closest approach to proof is a succession of unsuccessful attempts at falsification. There have certainly been many attempts at falsification of the Barnett formula, most of them, as we have heard in the debate today, based on the requirement for a definition of "need". I am not clear what a definition of "need" may look like. I am also not sure who we could trust to carry out such a task. Perhaps it would be the new commission that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, described. That would be better than the Treasury. In awe of it as I am, I believe the Treasury would have an agenda of its own which might worry your Lordships.
In any case, even if one could arrive at a definition of "need", some critics go much further than that. They argue that there can be no fair and final resolution until it is clear that total expenditure—the "baseline", as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, put it—not only the increase, should be allocated according to relative need. For critics from that direction, the Barnett formula itself is not the problem. The problem is the size, for example, of the Scottish block itself to which the changed formula is applied, and also for those critics, the cost of the Scottish Parliament at its centre.
We have heard so many views. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that there was a cacophony outside. We are certainly not in a scientific laboratory. That is
258
why we must look forward, with eager anticipation, to what the Government may say to give us a lead. I should like to end on what the Government may say in a moment or two.
Let me remind your Lordships of a ministerial answer in another place just before the 2001 general election. The Minister of State in the Scotland Office said of the Barnett formula that it provided a fair deal and,
"we have no plans to change it". —[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/01; col. 135.]
Meantime, however, I gather that the Government were coming under pressure from some Labour MPs, particularly those from the north-east of England, to amend the Barnett formula. So, at about the same time as that statement was made in Parliament, John Prescott warned that the Barnett formula,
"was not written in stone".
Peter Mandelson chipped in with the words:
"A review is timely".
So what are to make of that?
Just before I entered the Chamber I was asked: "What will the Government say?". I hope that the Minister will not take this too badly. I am afraid that I said: whatever they say makes no difference to what they will do. I know that the Minister will forgive me. If the Government say "no review", that does not mean that no review will occur—only that today is not the day, and that this House is not the place where they have chosen to announce it.
These days, government policy is revealed to us in only two ways: by accident, when a newspaper discovers it and there is a need for a response; or by design, when a day is judged to be a good day to bury, exhume or review a policy. I hope that the House does not think that I am being too unkind to the Minister; I do not mean to be. This is certainly not a criticism of him. What little I have learnt about conduct at the Despatch Box, I have learnt as his shadow.
I am thinking of the description by Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, of the way in which this Government work:
"Major news stories can trigger a process of policy assessment that might traditionally have taken three or four months and now have to be handled in a matter of days, or even hours, sometimes overnight".
The Minister always sweetly and humbly says that he is his master's voice. The trouble seems to be that on this topic, as on so many others, his master speaks with two voices.
6.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in 1860, Robert Browning was asked about a poem entitled "Sordello" that he had written in 1840. He said:
"When it was written, God and Robert Browning knew what it meant; now only God knows".
I felt that way about the Barnett formula. I used to think that I understood it reasonably well—at least enough to answer casual questions in this House, when I could away with a sentence or two without having to

259
go into detail. But the more I looked at the briefing available to me from the Treasury, and indeed from the Scotland Office, the more I realised that I did not understand it at all. I thought that for the benefit of those speakers who understand the subject a great deal better than I—it does the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, credit in more ways than one that he attracted many expert speakers to the debate—I ought to outline the fundamental characteristics of the formula. Some of the comments made do not entirely fit the facts.
First, the formula is used only to determine spending in devolved areas. Spending in reserved areas, such as social security, is determined by UK government departments in Westminster. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, talked about unemployment as being the objective. Yes, it is the objective, but it is addressed largely by reserved expenditure rather than by devolved expenditure.
Secondly, the formula is used only to determine changes in spending and not the level of spending inherited from the past. The original block was needs based, and needs change over a period of time. But the formula provides the devolved administrations with a population share of increases in comparable spending of UK government departments. It is a factual question, not one of formulae, and not even one of statistics. It is certainly not a question of what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, called "strict rationality" as to whether that works in 2001.
Thirdly, the formula determines an overall increase in the assigned budgets of the devolved administrations. It is up to the devolved administrations how they allocate this to their programmes reflecting their policies and priorities—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, reminded us. That enables me to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that whatever she may say about the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, I could not possibly comment. It is nothing to do with me or with this Parliament.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it has a great deal to do with the Barnett formula. We are talking about the whole thing. In this respect, the noble Lord should comment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we in this House are not concerned with devolved expenditure.
If anyone thinks that this is a rigid formula, the coverage of the blocks determined by the Barnett formula has increased over time since its introduction. It now covers the bulk of the departmental expenditure limits of the devolved administrations. Again, that has an effect on the degree of flexibility.
Finally, for the minority of speakers in the debate who represented England, the Barnett formula is not used to allocate spending within England. UK government departments allocate funding within England on a basis appropriate to the spending programme. That is why it is not easy to make comparisons between regional expenditure in England and country expenditure in the devolved administrations.
260
I want to emphasise that there have been substantial changes. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the "great correction" of 1992. He was referring to the population correction. Until 1992, but not after that, the original block was updated for inflation. That made a substantial difference to the changes.
I say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that European structural funds are included in the public expenditure figures for the devolved administrations. However, it is not true to say that they do not cost the UK taxpayers money. The costs are reflected in the net contributions, which are not part of the devolved administrations' blocks, but in a charge to the UK as a whole.
What are the arguments about the Barnett formula to which we ought to pay attention? The first is one of convenience. A number of speakers referred to it Yes, it is true that it avoids negotiation during public spending reviews. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked what the actual cost of negotiation was nevertheless. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, gave a satisfactory answer: whatever it is, it is certainly a great deal less than if we had fundamental reviews of the formula or of any other formula each time we had a new public spending review, even though they are not now held every year. I do not underestimate the value of the transparent, durable and simple rule for reaching spending settlements without direct negotiation. That may be a government point of view rather than a national point of view, but it is not insignificant.
The second point that must be taken seriously, as it was by a number of speakers, is that the formula was the basis for the devolution settlement. If we were to start going back on it so soon after the devolution settlement, there are those who would accuse us of bad faith.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, do not like the devolution settlement. They think that it was not thought through. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, on the Government Benches, thought that it worked successfully and that it was a reasonable basis on which to assure the Scottish and Welsh people of what it was they were being asked to vote for. The funding arrangements, which include the Barnett formula, have been published in the statement of funding policy which was updated in July 2000 following consultation with the devolved administrations and agreement with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, wants a new, stable formula. I do not think that this is the time to ask for a new, stable formula when the existing formula has been the basis of a concordat, so to speak, in the past couple of years.
A number of noble Lords referred to the English regions. I have made it clear why it is difficult— although I do not understand fully why it is impossible—to make the comparisons that we should all like to make. It is clear, because of the difference

261
between devolved and reserved matters, why it is difficult to make comparisons between regions. Certainly, the figures referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Radice, in his excellent and well-informed maiden speech—namely, for the total managed expenditure per head—are correct. Indeed, I should have been astonished had the noble Lord said anything that was not correct.
It is also the case that the convergence that some people seemed to anticipate with dread, and others with hope, has not happened in quite the way that was anticipated at the beginning. That is partly because for the bulk of the life of the Barnett formula the block was updated for inflation, and the block itself is more important than it might otherwise have been. It is also because there is not a fixed and predetermined convergence path built into the Barnett formula. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, made that valid point. The so-called convergence characteristic simply reflects the fact that population-based increases represent a smaller percentage increase where baseline levels of spending per head are higher. That of course has been the case in Scotland and was the case in Wales at the beginning. Those considerations must be taken into account.
We are obliged to look at the results of the Barnett formula over a 20-year-plus period. I do not accept the attacks on statistics or statisticians. I always resist that anti-knowledge point of view whenever I hear it in the House. Nevertheless, it is not just statistics; it is a matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said, of perception as well.
The Barnett formula has survived because it is generally accepted as effective in determining the allocation of public expenditure in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It has produced public expenditure settlements that have been perceived as generally fair and broadly acceptable since it was introduced. It has been used without query or major change by both Labour and Conservative Governments—governments with different representation in England and the other three countries of the United Kingdom.
It is right for the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Saatchi, to demand transparency, but surely the Barnett formula is relatively transparent, relatively straightforward, relatively durable and a simple rule for reaching spending settlements without direct negotiation. Compare it with local government spending assessments, which are renegotiated every year on a multi-variant analysis and are utterly incomprehensible to 99.99 percent of the population.
I have to play the game of saying what I intended to say, rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, expects me to say. He wants me to say that there will be a review. We responded to the Treasury Select Committee in 1998 and published a statement of funding policy in July 2000. We set out the details of the funding arrangements fully and transparently, most of which, after two nights of falling asleep on, I
262
think I finally understood. The position remains the same. We have no commitment to review the Barnett formula. On the other hand, it is not fixed in stone.
I say that not because we are putting two points of view at the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would wish, but because we have been changing the Barnett formula at the margins. We have updated the population figures and the comparability factors used in the formula. The noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Livsey—who made an excellent maiden speech— both said rather grudgingly that for Wales we had excluded the objective 1 payments from the Barnett formula. I do not know what is wrong with that. When it is necessary and appropriate, we take the opportunity to make decisions that supersede a part of the Barnett formula.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Will he tell the House whether it remains the Government's objective to reduce the over-expenditure in Scotland, relative to England, which was the original purpose of the Barnett formula?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett will have to answer the point about whether that was the original purpose, although I never understood it to be so. I think that that was a bit of oppositionitis on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether there is a commitment to an annual revision of the formula and how it would work?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no commitment to an annual revision, although changes have been made to the formula as and when necessary. A commitment to an annual revision would be a commitment to some other basis of making an allocation to the different countries.
The thrust of the debate has been that even those who want to abolish the Barnett formula, or replace it with some son or granddaughter of Barnett, are by no means agreed on what that replacement should be. I think that my noble friend Lord Barnett would accept that, having heard the debate.
Is it the case, as has been suggested, that Barnett has somehow run its course? Is Barnett worse now than in 1978? We do not accept that. It is still as relevant as in 1978. It is updated in each spending review to reflect current circumstances in each country, without a commitment to revise or review it. Of course it does not cause differences in GDP, which is one of the few misunderstandings that appeared in the debate. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, fell into that trap. As the large bulk of income-related spending is reserved, we cannot blame changes in GDP on the Barnett formula. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made that point successfully. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to the degree of updating on population that took place. If we were to undertake a review with a particular view in mind—no particular

263
view has emerged from this debate—we would be responding to partial criticisms of a system that has stood the test of time.
I know that we do not have constituencies in this House, but I looked at the origins of the speakers in the debate. Of the 19 Back-Bench speakers, nine came from Scotland and five from Wales. With the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, from Scotland, who honourably wanted to scrap the Barnett formula, I could have predicted not the arguments but the conclusions that everybody in the House reached. They were none the worse for that.
We have heard a wide range of somewhat conflicting views. We think that the formula served us well, but we shall continue to listen to the views expressed.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I, too, could have predicted my noble friend's reply to the debate. I am not too surprised about that. I would have been astonished had it been otherwise.
In the brief time that I have available, I should like to thank everyone who participated in the debate, including those with whom I disagreed as well as agreed. I have learnt a lot. I have heard about the Barnett squeeze, the Barnett by-pass and the Barnett hug and that I am either a good fairy or a witch.
I also wish to thank the two maiden speakers. I am glad to have provided the opportunity for us to hear such excellent maiden speeches. I have learnt how people have misunderstood the Barnett formula over all these years, even the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Incredibly, after all that I said—he surely listened—he had in mind that the formula would eventually converge. Nothing of the kind was intended; it was intended to make life easy by having a simple formula. That is what I said it was about. My noble friend accused me of referring to rationality but I quoted him. He may have forgotten that I quoted his words when he said it was not rational.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, he must have been right then.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the important point that has been made time and again by a number of noble Lords is that the real problem—this is even more of a problem than the fact that the Barnett formula does not help convergence—is the need to look at the baseline. That is the crucial question that has quite rightly arisen because until you look at the baseline you are dealing only with the margins. That, I believe and hope, has come out of the debate.
The Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, may be looking at me closely. Perhaps she is not. In that case I shall carry on. She knows very well that I obey her every word—well, sort of. The debate has been in some ways an excellent one. We have heard some good speeches and, like the Minister, some of them have not surprised me too much when delivered by noble Lords from northern parts of the UK who think that the Barnett formula as at present
264
constituted is doing a grand job. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, nods. No one took any note of the danger of fighting an election on the basis of not changing the formula. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, did not say anything about that as he knows very well that it did not do anyone any good, but nevertheless it has kept going for some 23 years.
As I say, I have grown to like the name. I do not want to see any changes made to it. I have a formula; that is marvellous. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, made some kind remarks. I suppose that he has other suffixes after his name, but I have a formula after mine. Not many people have that. I am grateful for that but I am even more grateful to those who participated in the debate. I am told that if I press the Motion to a vote—I see that my Whip looks at me closely—and I win, hoards of paper will fall on my head. Therefore, for that and other reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Terrorism
6.43 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to call attention to the case for planning for the possibility of a successful terrorist attack on the United Kingdom using a weapon of mass destruction; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move now from Barnett fair to the bazaars in Peshawar with which I am rather more familiar. The previous time I was in Peshawar, which is a wonderful place to buy all kinds of things that governments do not want you to have, we went up in the hills to try out a Kalashnikov. We set up a tin can on a rock a couple of hundred yards away, took a pot shot at it and missed. It took five minutes for the firing in the hills to die down, so we did not try it again.
These days Peshawar is a place where you can buy rather more dangerous things than that. Indeed, there are quite a lot of places in the world where you can get hold of nuclear materials and possibly chemical and biological weapons. Someone with the resources of Mr bin Laden can doubtless hope at least to lay his hands on them. As President Bush was quoted as saying yesterday—I think quite rightly—we face a real danger that weapons of mass destruction will fall into the hands of terrorists—and not terrorists as we have been used to them. These terrorists know no limits to the destruction they are prepared to cause. They have no fear for themselves; they have no regard for the life of others and they are not susceptible to negotiation. As I have said, the raw materials are there, or at least potentially there, for them to make use of and to attack us with.
What concerns me today is to look at the long-term consequences of a successful attack; at what we should do to try to prevent such an attack and at how we should plan to overcome the consequences should one occur. I look first at the old-fashioned weapons of mass destruction—chemical weapons, nuclear

265
weapons, dirty bombs and all that kind of thing, which share the characteristic that they are limited in time and area. Probably we are looking at only a single attack; these weapons are hard to deliver and equally hard to get hold of. There will be one event, at one time, and it will cause a terrible amount of destruction, but that will be the limit of it.
What would we do should such an attack occur in this country? I suspect that we would do quite well. It is the sort of attack we imagined being part of during the Cold War, although I suspect our plans have lacked some polish since then and could do with some reviving. Should such an attack occur, it will be much better if we have planned well. What we need is a plan that people know about. If something like that happens, people want to know that the Government know what to do. If they have a role to play, they want to know what they should be doing or who they should ask to find out what they should be doing. If we cannot react fast, we invite the spread of chaos.
We need to plan ahead to be resilient in the face of such an attack. Telecoms is a good example as even when just one building collapsed in the United States it was clear how badly affected the mobile phone services were. It took a month for some of them to recover. Certainly some of them were unusable for a week or so because they had not been built in a resilient way. If we want to have services that are resilient, we must plan for that, just as the Internet was planned to be resilient. Such services should not be, or at least sufficient of them, should not be vulnerable to one event. Let us imagine what such an event might be. Suppose someone set off a small nuclear bomb outside Westminster Hall on a day when Parliament was sitting. What would happen to government? What would happen to the administration of this country? What would happen to telecommunications, the media and commerce? Do we know? I do not suppose that we do because we have not asked the questions. It does not take much to ask those questions, but it would take several years to make proper plans for the consequences.
Businesses are beginning to ask those kind of questions following the attacks in New York. They are beginning to ask, "Do we really want all our people in one place? Do we really want to have all our telecommunications going through one pinch-point that could be taken out in a terrorist attack?" Those are the kind of questions we ought to ask here. We ought in our forward planning for government to make sure that in 10 or 20 years' time we have a governmental system which will be more resilient to any such terrorist attack.
Planning has always had a bit of a bad name. It has been notable by its absence in recent crises. When we hit the petrol crisis it was clear that there was no great plan. In the foot and mouth crisis, we took far too long to react because people had not planned for it. In the BSE crisis, which I found myself in the middle of, there was an absolute prohibition on planning on the basis that if we made any plans as to what we should do if BSE proved to be infectious to humans, people would
266
worry that it might be infectious to humans and so it was therefore considered better all round if we did not plan.
That is a bad argument, but a reasonable one because people worry if they know you are planning for something horrible to happen. But just at the moment we all know what terrorists are capable of. We all know—it is in the papers every day—what they might become capable of. People already have those concerns in mind. This is an excellent time to plan because just at the moment planning will calm rather than frighten. It will also have the beneficial effect of helping people to understand why we need to engage in what I suspect will be a long, difficult and bloody campaign in Afghanistan.
It is not too hard, given the time and the will, to plan to react well to an old-fashioned weapon of mass destruction, not least because, should such a thing happen to us, all our friends round the world would pile in to help. We would not be lacking assistance or resources to deal with the problems that resulted.
However, what would happen if we were the subject of a biological attack? Suppose that someone released an organism in the middle of London that was as infectious as the common cold and as deadly as the plague. First, all our borders would slam shut. No one would want anyone to carry the plague from England to anywhere else. We are easy to isolate because we are an island. We would find ourselves in an island isolation ward on our own.
What would we do other than die? I am sure that we do not have a clue. There has been no plan for that sort of thing in this country and it is evident from the American reaction to anthrax that there has been no plan there either. How likely is an attack at such a level? At the moment it is not very likely. We can see from the current anthrax outbreak in the States that we are not facing anything as dangerous as chemical or nuclear weapons. The diseases involved are easy to conquer and limited in spread. They also do not appear to be widely available—they certainly have not been used in the way that they might have been if they were widely available.
However, we also know that the technology to make such diseases easily available is on the way. We have sequenced the human genome and the genomes of about 100 human pathogens. Every day we understand more about the mechanisms of diseases and disease-resistance. The machinery to make pathogens—certainly to make viruses and possibly to engineer bacteria in serious ways—is available in thousands of laboratories all over the world with standard biological laboratory equipment.
Mistakes in conventional experiments in Australia have shown just how close people can get to such a result. About a year ago, while trying to do something else, the Australians engineered a mousepox virus that destroyed the immune system of the mouse that it infected, so it became impossible to immunise against it. They inserted into its genome a copy of Interleukin4, which is a standard component of the mouse immune system. They had not expected that effect.

267
Should Mr bin Laden get hold of smallpox, which is not impossible—there are certainly some remaining traces of it in the world, although not much, thank goodness—it would not take much more than a standard biology laboratory for him to be able to create a smallpox that we could not vaccinate against. Even at this moment we would have no defence against that.
In a few years, when we can really engineer pathogens and produce viruses whose coats are human protein so that the immune system does not attack them, when we can combine the virulence of plague with the ease of movement and infection of the common cold, then we will be able to produce some truly terrifying pathogens. The knowledge and ability will be there and we know from what happened on 11th September that the motivation to use them will be there, too.
What should we do? First, we should pursue with resolution the task of dealing with international terrorism that we are currently set about. The less powerful the terrorist networks, the less chance there will be of one of them producing this sort of weapon.
Secondly, we should do what we can to prevent bioterrorism in particular. The first weapon against it should be intelligence. Anyone producing an engineered pathogen needs a laboratory, equipment and, above all, reagents. All of those are traceable, but it takes time. The Americans still have not tracked down a list of all the laboratories in the United States that could have produced the anthrax that is troubling them at the moment, because they had not prepared and planned. These things cannot be done in a few weeks from a standing start. If part of the task of the intelligence services was to monitor any facility that might be producing such pathogens, they would be in a much better position to react should one appear.
We also need co-operation. No state should be in the business of producing the sort of pathogen that could cause us real trouble. States need bioweapons that cannot bite back. They need something that will destroy their enemy, but not come back and kill the state that sent it. An engineered smallpox or common cold would not be a good state bioweapon. Everybody—or almost everybody; I am sure that there will be a few exceptions—ought to be prepared to cooperate to make sure that the intelligence services world-wide have the information that they need to keep bioweapons development under control. The United States Government need to learn a lesson on that. They have come close to wrecking the bioweapons treaty by refusing inspections. They have to turn their minds to that again.
We need to make sure that we study from a defensive point of view the sort of technologies that will be used by bioterrorists and the proper counter-measures to them. I hope that Porton Down is doing that at the moment. We should watch world-wide for terrorists testing bioweapons. With current technology, no one will produce a perfect pathogen at a first try. They will produce something and then try it out to see whether it works. We need to watch for unusual diseases or
268
unusual variants of diseases appearing world-wide, as a symptom of someone being on the way to producing a bioweapon. We need to be imaginative in thinking about how such an attack might occur. One obvious way would be to produce a fungus that successfully attacked wheat. A new wheat fungus that was resistant to all known methods of killing it might very easily wipe out the US wheat harvest for a year or two, which would have considerable effects. We should not limit ourselves to the obvious human pathogens.
Thirdly, we need to be able to react fast. We need to plan a reactive structure that could be used in the event of an attack. We need microbiologists. Microbiology as a medical discipline is very run down at the moment. There are only one or two such professors in the UK. We think that we have defeated pathogens, but if we are to defeat an attack, we need the resources in place. We need more microbiologists. We also need diagnostics and laboratories. That means that we need to do a great deal to preserve the presence of the international pharmaceutical industry in this country, because we will not have the resources in our national laboratories.
Communications and power facilities need to be available whatever might happen to the nation. If we have to close off parts of the country to prevent disease spreading, we still need to be able to react to the disease. We need to plan to limit the spread. We do not want to follow the foot and mouth example and use culling. We need to plan for isolation and know what we are going to do if we are cut off and cannot get food and fuel into the country. There will be a premium on being able to deal with the outbreak fast, but we need to understand how we would deal with it if it took time.
Lastly, we need to plan for recovery. That may come more into the sphere of Mr Opik in another place and his near-earth objects. What happens if something really gets out of control? What do we need to have in place and how do we need to design our basic systems so that we can pick ourselves up off the floor? The Internet is a pretty good example of something that will work in the case of disaster. We need to extend that principle to power in particular and to some elements of manufacturing and distribution.
We need a back-up. We need to back up our civilisation in the way that we back up a computer. When people have died in large numbers, no one will know what is where or how to do things. We need to know where to find that knowledge and the Government need to provide a place for it.
If we plan, we will do much better. We will be much less likely to be attacked successfully; and if we are attacked, we shall resist and survive it much better. If we do not plan, we are putting ourselves at the risk of one man coming into Heathrow airport and putting an end to what we have all known in this country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I clearly appreciate the thrust of this debate, which addresses the possibility of a successful terrorist attack. It is of

269
course concerned, as I see it, with our local authorities and the emergency services, how they will cope and the extent to which that has been planned for. What preparation have the police made? How ready are our fire services? Are our hospitals, doctors and nurses prepared for the worst of scenarios? And if needs be there are the Armed Forces.
I do not dissent for one moment from this concern. I indeed support the concern for a comprehensive programme to deal with such an atrocity. However, on the basis that prevention is better than cure, the prime objective must be to do all in our power to avoid the possibility of a successful terrorist attack. Although I know that all noble Lords will understand, it is my intention to stray into that area because I believe that too many too often pay lip service to it and the necessary practical steps are either not taken or, if they are, they are not enthusiastically implemented.
That brings me once again to the conflict between human rights and civil liberties on the one hand, and safety and security on the other. Perhaps I may first say that practical steps should be taken to make secure nuclear power stations, railway tunnels, particularly the Channel Tunnel, and airports which are likely targets for the terrorist. However, as regards aeroplanes, I believe that the possibility of hijacking a plane for the purpose of turning it into a guided missile, as occurred on 11th September, is now a more remote possibility. I say that because before 11th September the culture was that where hijackers were attempting to take over a plane the crew were to obey the hijackers, calm the passengers and bring the plane down safely and allow negotiations to take place. There are numerous examples of such incidents. But 11th September changed all that. Whether or not there are sky marshals and more secure cockpits, it seems to me that never again are 200 to 300 passengers placidly going to allow four or five hijackers to take over a plane without a struggle. Any potential hijackers will now know of that.
Another area of concern must be to make more secure hospitals and research establishments where there are ingredients for assisting the terrorists in practising their insanity through the bringing about of nuclear, chemical or biological atrocities.
Of course, the areas to which I have referred are not an exhaustive list and many noble Lords could no doubt refer to many others. I am sure that there will be no complacency on the part of the Government in exploring every avenue to prevent terrorists acquiring from this country the means to spread their terror. I believe that there will be no complacency in taking steps to increase the security around the establishments thought to be likely targets.
I now want to turn to our democratic system, which is very largely underpinned by laws in relation to human rights and civil liberties and the extent to which in the present climate they make the safety and security of this nation's people more difficult to achieve. It is not an issue that I raise for the first time. Noble Lords may recall that during the debate in the recess, on 4th October, I stated that I believed that the balance
270
between human rights and civil liberties, and safety and security, had to be re-established. Everything that has happened since has only reinforced my view.
On 4th October I suggested that the Government should seriously and urgently consider and examine the introduction of ID cards, the law on extradition, the law in respect of asylum seekers and as regards those openly preaching support for the terrorist actions of Osama bin Laden. We are now told that many are recruiting for his Taliban army. I am extremely pleased at the action the Government have taken so far in these areas.
I appreciate that there are those who say that to reduce or dilute our human rights and civil liberties legislation would be a betrayal of our civilised behaviour and would be to surrender to the terrorists. I do not accept those arguments in the present climate. My view is that the first priority in the provision of human rights and civil liberties is for people to live without the threat or fear of terrorism. I believe that our laws must be drafted or redrafted to ensure that as far as possible that approach is reinforced. Some may believe that in achieving greater security and safety our human rights and civil liberties are being diluted; then so be it. It seems to me that we have reached a stage in this country where the vast majority of our people are law-abiding and innocent of any wrongdoing and are now being exposed to dangers because our laws enable unscrupulous wrongdoers to practise their evil. That cannot be right. It is about time there was a revaluation of our legal system which currently enables villains to use our generous and liberal laws to escape what most people understand to be justice. As a result, they continue to be a threat to our people and our cherished way of life.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing this debate. After only two speakers it is already wide-ranging and I shall probably widen it a little further. I begin by declaring some interests. I am, and have been for the past 28 years, a London borough councillor. I am now a member of the Greater London Assembly, a member of the Mayor of London's advisory cabinet and perhaps even more relevant to this debate, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, whose finance, planning and best value committee I chair. So the subject under discussion has been a matter of some concern in wearing all of those hats over the past month or two.
Because of that, although I speak today from the Front Bench, I wish to speak primarily about London and the role of the Metropolitan Police. I do that because it reflects my knowledge and experience and also because we have to accept that, while these attacks could take place anywhere, London must be one of the more likely targets for obvious reasons. In addition to its role in London, the Metropolitan Police is also the national lead on matters such as this. I also believe that some of the lessons learned from London's experience over the past 30 years could well be applied and adapted elsewhere. I shall return to that shortly.

271
In one sense I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The Motion refers to "A successful terrorist attack". I understand why it deliberately states that and why that is the purpose of the debate. But we should begin by stressing that great effort has been put into ensuring that any such attack is not successful. I am absolutely certain that for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that has to be the first priority. We have not had any intelligence that suggests that such an attack in London or elsewhere is planned. But the same was said in New York, whether correctly or not I would not know.
Much of the activity since 11th September has been designed to give public reassurance. That is why we have had variously 1,000 or 1,500 additional police officers on the streets of London to give reassurance to the public and to those sections of the community which feel particularly vulnerable. I refer in particular to the Muslim community and their mosques. I know that that has been much appreciated.
I refer to the theme of public reassurance which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned. I could not be here for Questions on Monday but I have read Hansard. I noted that they revealed a degree of ignorance of current arrangements on the part of those noble Lords who took part. Clearly, your Lordships are generally better informed than are most members of the public—I genuinely believe that—so I suspect that if noble Lords are not well informed, neither is the general public.
It might be useful for public reassurance for the Government to give greater publicity to the structures and arrangements that exist—and have done for years—to deal with such emergencies. What is done may sometimes be secret and confidential; but the existence of such structures is certainly not. It is in the public domain and perhaps the public should be more aware of it. The Government should consider that as part of public reassurance, which may be all the more necessary after the rather chilling speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, tonight.
It is for the Minister, not for me, to explain what are the arrangements, and he has more time to do so than I have been given, but I want to refer to one aspect—the situation in London. At operational level, planning to respond to emergencies is carried out through the London Emergency Services Liaison Panel—LESLP to its friends. It has met regularly, on and off, since 1973; it is not a new body. It brings together the three police forces operational in London—although, interestingly, not the Ministry of Defence Police—as well as fire and ambulance services, the Port of London Authority and representatives of the London boroughs and the City Corporation. As the Minister confirmed on Monday, the Metropolitan Police is in overall charge—it chairs LESLP and takes overall operational charge.
Sadly, since LESLP was established in 1973, London has had too much experience of emergencies, whether terrorist bombs or civil emergencies such as train crashes. I am confident that operationally our emergency services work well together on such
272
occasions and will do so almost whatever happens. LESLP has been developing for almost 30 years, but I understand that it is not fully replicated elsewhere in the country. What lessons have the Government learned from the experience of LESLP? To what extent could it or should it be replicated elsewhere, especially in our major cities?
However good it is, LESLP has one big weakness: it has no statutory basis or funding arrangements; it relies on the good will of its members. Are the Government considering giving LESLP a statutory basis—preferably, but not necessarily, under the Greater London Authority—together with recognised funding arrangements? That could help information-sharing among the various agencies involved, which, I gather, can sometimes prove a problem.
I turn more closely to the Motion, which envisages a successful terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction. The events of 11th September have caused all of us, including our emergency planners, to think the unthinkable. Before 11th September, no one seriously contemplated what happened then and what could happen. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has described for us tonight other possible scenarios. These involve envisaging casualties on a scale higher than ever previously contemplated or planned for.
Will the Minister give us assurances tonight on some necessary questions? For instance, are there sufficient available and suitable areas for use as survivor reception areas? Are temporary mortuary facilities available for thousands of fatalities? Could accommodation, catering and medical facilities be provided for the non-fatally injured and evacuees? Do we have facilities quickly to set up family reception areas? We are thinking on a scale that we have not previously had to contemplate.
Those are important issues, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right to draw our attention to them. He is right to say that such scenarios are difficult to contemplate. We hope they are unlikely to happen, but they may and we should plan for them. Those questions assume large numbers of casualties, and we must be ready for that should it happen.
However, in my inexpert view I believe that, if anything should happen in London—God forbid—it is unlikely to be an attack by a weapon of mass destruction and will not necessarily lead to major casualties. It is more likely to lead to major disruption. We all know that there are a relatively small number of locations in London which, if attacked, may produce no casualties, or only accidental ones, but could bring the whole of Greater London to a halt, not just for the day—London Underground manages that quite easily—but for a significant period, with millions of people within that area needing to get out. I wonder whether our emergency planners are seriously preparing for such an emergency. Reassurance on that from the Minister would be welcome. I do not know what steps are being taken to deal with such an eventuality, which I think is more likely than a successful attack with a weapon of mass destruction.

273
I turn to the political—with a small 'p'—aspects of the matter. We know that the police are in overall operational charge in London. Who is in political charge in London? One lesson that we learnt on 11th September and in the following days was that nobody had given any thought to the fact that we now have a London government and a directly elected mayor. I plead guilty to that too. I spent many happy hours in the Chamber considering the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and I do not recall us discussing the matter at all. It became clear that the mayor and the GLA, as distinct from some of its functional bodies, had no role in such emergencies.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us of the London resilience sub-committee within the Civil Contingency Committee structure. Since 11th September, the mayor and the chief executive of the GLA are members of that sub-committee. I know that it meets every few weeks; I believe that it is attended by about 50 people, and I am sure that it is doing great work. The mayor has expressed publicly and privately his satisfaction with those arrangements, so I am in no sense speaking on his behalf. However, communication with and reassurance of Londoners, and perhaps others, will be an important role after a major attack such as we are envisaging tonight. Who will provide that?
The Minister for London is a fine fellow and at present a London Member of Parliament, but he has an electorate of perhaps 60,000 and is appointed by the Prime Minister. The mayor of London—whoever that may be; I do not refer to the present incumbent in particular—has an electorate of 5 million people and has been elected by Londoners to do the job and to represent them. Londoners will expect whoever is mayor of London when, God forbid, such an emergency occurs, to take the public and political lead and provide reassurance and communication. Are the Government ready to contemplate that? If they truly believe in devolution—in this case, to London government —they should be. Of course, I recognise that in a national catastrophe the Government have a role to play on a national and international scale.
Finally, I will use this opportunity, as chairman of the finance committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority, to raise the "give us the money" issue. It is a serious issue. Much has rightly been made of having an additional 1,000—or even at times 1,500—police officers on the streets of London. An obvious point that is not often recognised is that they are not actually additional officers but existing officers working considerable additional overtime, whether they have come from the territorial support group or the borough police services. There are an awful lot of tired police officers in the Metropolitan Police.
Since 11th September, the additional officers have cost the Metropolitan Police Authority more than £1 million a week. The MPA is already overspending on its budget this year and it is taking strenuous steps to get back within it, regardless of the events of 11th September. The GLA took over as police authority from the Home Secretary only last year. We inherited
274
no reserves at all—none, not a penny. We tried to create a small reserve in the current year's budget but that has gone. We do not have the money to continue to meet the additional cost week after week for goodness knows how long. We do not yet know what is expected from us next year or what the Government will pay for. It would enormously enhance my reputation if the Minister would stand up today and hand over the cheque to me. I could then bank it tomorrow.
I suspect that that will not happen. I am sure that the Minister is in no position to tell us today how much we shall receive, but I hope that he can tell us at least when we will know how much we shall receive. We have had to satisfy the statutory responsibilities of our treasurer in making arrangements for covering the cost in the, I hope, unlikely event that we have to meet it. However, if we had to do so, there would be serious consequences indeed for policing in London. We need to know—and we need to know urgently—I suspect from the Chancellor rather than the Home Office what we are to receive, and when, to cover the cost of this year's emergency policing and in response to the proposals for next year. It would be most helpful if tonight the Minister could indicate the amount or, more likely, the timescale.
Short though the debate will be, it has been useful. I hope that in reply the Minister will give me not only the reassurances I seek but the wider reassurances which the public want.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas has done the House a service in bringing forward the debate today. It is timely because we need to consider and plan for what so recently was considered to be unthinkable.
I hesitate in rising to speak because when previously I dealt with governments I always said that although we might try to think of every eventuality they would consider in their treatment of my county, they would always put forward something else. And they always did. One of the lessons of 11th September is that bin Laden thought of something else. We should not assume that he does not have other original tricks up his sleeve.
However, considering the debate in the context of my noble friend's Motion dealing with weapons of mass destruction, conventionally they are nuclear, biological and chemical. The big point about nuclear weapons is that it will probably be difficult for a terrorist organisation to obtain a conventional nuclear bomb. On the other hand, it will probably be all too easy for them to obtain what is known as a "dirty bomb"; that is, a conventional explosive wrapped in highly radio-active material which is distributed over the area surrounding the explosion.
Not least of the problems which we face is that such weapons and materials are not difficult to transport and do not take up a huge amount of space. In accepting that some people are inclined to act improperly, we must bear in mind that the number of

275
containers which daily enter our ports is vast and that the current rate of checking is less than 10 per cent. It is about 5 per cent. That is one issue about which we need to worry.
The next category of weapons is biological. They are unpredictable but we need to take notice of what my noble friend said about the increasing possibility of designer weapons. Biological weapons are, more than anything else, psychological weapons. Of course their use raises the possibility of a large number of deaths, but the purpose of bio-terrorism, using conventional diseases, is to disable society through terror—to disrupt society. Again, prevention is vitally important.
Chemical weapons are probably less of a problem. We saw what happened when the Falun Gong tried sarin gas on the underground in Japan. Although the effects were not as bad as we might have thought could be achieved, we should not in any way be complacent. Frankly, I have a daily fear that someone will do something terrible to London's Underground and cause immense damage in the process.
In order for terrorists to obtain any of those weapons, they must either purchase them from an illicit supplier or steal them from otherwise legitimate sources. We should all realise that the best way of limiting the possibility of such action is simply to prevent terrorists obtaining the weapons. Perhaps the Minister will say what steps the Government are taking in respect of security at all installations handling any of those substances—and not just in this country. Are we aiding Russia and some of the eastern European and central Asian republics in their huge task of dealing with large stocks of nuclear materials in particular? I understand that they are not always stored in the most secure installations. Their scientists, who have enormous expertise, are grossly underemployed and even more grossly under-rewarded and might be inclined to sell their services, if not their product, to someone who will pay them well. We need to pay particular attention to that aspect.
My noble friend Lord Lucas raised the question of how we would handle a biological attack. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Public Health Laboratory Service has been asked for advice? Are there resource implications for that service? Speed of foot when dealing with biological warfare is of fundamental and essential necessity. Initially, the possibility of treatment will depend on a rapid diagnosis of the disease—we may well have to deal with a novel disease—after which it will depend on having the facilities to continue the diagnosis. That will mean a steep learning curve for hospital laboratory services, at the end of which we shall need a high-tech industry to produce a cure in a short time. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have all that in the back of their mind.
Outside London, responsibility for major emergencies clearly rests with the major authorities. In my former county council, for instance, the emergency planning officer will have prepared plans to deal with everything from the catastrophic collapse of Bradwell nuclear power station downwards. The background
276
behind that lies in the original civil defence legislation in which it was necessary to consider the possibilities of nuclear war. Nuclear war has been considered, and I dare say that if some of the old plans were dusted off we should find ourselves dealing with potential numbers of casualties greater than any of us have thought about tonight. Please God that that will never be a situation with which we have to deal.
The fact is that, outside the metropolitan areas, the planning responsibility is very clear. In London and, I suspect, in other metropolitan areas, the responsibility is rather more divided. Plans exist for everything that one can think of in this field. But the question that will always remain is: have we thought of everything? I suspect that we may not have done.
The plans involve all the emergency services—that is, police, fire, health, social services, and so on. I know that the plans are taken off the shelf, dusted off and rehearsed with great regularity. Again, I ask the Government whether, in the present environment, they are issuing additional guidance as to what the emergency planning authorities should be doing. I know that there has been what I would label a "wake-up call", and I was gratified to hear that.
I want to ask the Government another question. In the present situation, what guidance are they giving to the public utilities—the water companies, the energy companies and telecoms? Resilience—the ability to bounce back—is absolutely critical. Of course, security is also vitally important. There has been plenty of publicity about the possibility—again, I hope that it will never happen—of a 747 being flown into one of our nuclear power stations or, indeed, into Sellafield.
In fact, the worst-case scenarios for Sellafield are considerably worse than what happened at Chernobyl. That may or may not cause a problem because, if the wind was in the right direction, it might take all the contaminated material out over the Atlantic Ocean and dump it there. That would cause a subsequent problem, but we would not have the immediate difficulty of huge disruption and damage to health and society on land. I say that because, in fact, a great deal of the nuclear waste from Chernobyl went straight over Essex. However, it went over at about 4,000 metres and stayed at that height because it happened not to rain. We were extremely lucky.
All those industries need well considered recovery strategies. They must have those plans in place. Therefore, again, I must ask the Government whether they are working with the utilities to encourage them to develop recovery strategies. How quickly can those industries get back on their feet if their administrative headquarters are taken out? That is a question that must be asked.
It is also a question that must be asked of business and commerce because they also need to consider this type of issue. Of course, for the small commercial enterprise that is not a problem. If one happens to be involved in such an incident and one's business is destroyed, one must hope that the insurance cover will not "run". I sometimes think that having insurance

277
cover is like having an umbrella which is taken away when it starts to rain. In fact, the insurance industry does a very good job. But major industries which operate on multiple sites should consider what they need to do in order to come back from a major disruption to their business. It is no good having a recovery centre in the street next to the main administrative centre because the odds are that both will go at the same time. There are certainly cases where that is the situation.
I am sure that the Minister will have some interesting comments to make in response to the debate. I am not too pessimistic about the present situation. I believe that British society is remarkably resilient. I offer one final thought. Every time any one of us alters our plans because we are afraid of what might happen as a result of the activities of Mr bin Laden and Al'Qaeda, we play his game. We really should know better.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing this short debate. In answer to one of the last points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I begin by telling the House that I do not have anything interesting to say, and I have no comments to make on any of the scenarios that have been put before the House because that would cause more problems than it would solve.
However, I shall seek to deploy some points at greater length than I was able to do at Question Time on Monday when I answered a Question that related only to London. I shall also talk about the type of plans that we are making. However, I must say to anyone who is listening: switch off because there will be no detail, no examples and no free thinking. I shall stick fairly closely to the script that I have. That in no way short changes noble Lords who have spoken in the debate; it is the realistic position that I must take.
As I said on Monday, it is sad that in this country we have enormous experience of fighting terrorism. It has been present on our streets for many years and we deal with it as best we can. However, we have, at least, learnt from the experiences of the past three decades. Plans are always being adjusted and updated.
The issue of contingency planning is important. Pressure does not need to be applied to us on that matter as, indeed, it has not been necessary to apply it to previous governments. Planning continues in Whitehall departments on a day-in, day-out basis. I recall that, when I was at MAFF from 1997 to 1999, as a Minister I took part in, I believe, three planning exercises. I shall not explain what they involved, but they were genuine planning exercises, looking at events that might occur, at how well we were prepared to deal with such issues and how well we were prepared for recovery. There is a long-standing Home Office document that deals with the issue of disaster and civil protection. It has been printed and updated many times. We do not need to be persuaded to take part in and think about contingency planning.
278
The Home Office's national counter-terrorist exercise programme is designed to test these plans in conjunction with police forces and other government departments and agencies. The national programme involves on average three full-scale, live counterterrorist exercises per year and a substantial number of table-top exercises which cover the full range of possible scenarios. The planners of that programme will have listened to what noble Lords have said tonight. They will check their lists against what has been suggested may happen to see whether any matters raised tonight have not already been considered. I can assure noble Lords of that.
Since 1989 we—that is, the government machine—have been working on managing the consequences of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents. As I mentioned on Monday, we held a large-scale, operational exercise—Trump Card—in London last year.
Our contingency plans for dealing with a crisis in London are well developed because of the preparations and precautions that we put in hand in response to the major public safety concerns surrounding the millennium; for example, in relation to the "bug", the central-London celebrations, and the fears of terrorist activity. I can tell the House, although not in any detail, that an enormous amount of contingency planning went into the millennium and the bug.
People say, "Well, it was not a problem", but we do not know that it was not a problem. There was a massive amount of preparation in government and the private sector in many areas, including this country's infrastructure and distribution systems in case there were difficulties. People tend to forget that. That expenditure was well spent. We learnt much from that important effort—the issue was taken extremely seriously. None of that makes the UK a risk-free zone; no one is arguing that. There can be no such thing. We should keep things in context.
However, before addressing our arrangements for responding to and recovering from a disaster of the kind that has been hypothesised by various noble Lords, it is important to stress that the Government's priority is to ensure that such terrible eventualities do not come to pass. Our first watchword is prevention and our first line of defence, as the Prime Minister demonstrated in his speech in Cardiff last week, is to continue to play a full part in the coalition's political, military, diplomatic and humanitarian effort to defeat Al'Qaeda and the Taliban so that they cannot commit further atrocities and add to the worst terrorist attacks that the world has ever seen.
It has been said before—it has been said in this House—but it is worth repeating that things have changed since 11th September. As my noble friend Lord Davies said, people have got to wise up to that; the sooner that they do so the better. We are certainly changing with regard to our preparedness.
I can now say that later this month, the Government will introduce into Parliament an emergency anti-terrorism, crime and security Bill. It will contain a

279
range of proposals that noble Lords will debate at length with a view to obtaining Royal Assent, I hope, well before Christmas. We continue to organise our efforts in an evidence-led way, gathering and assessing intelligence in this country and abroad so that we can take preventive and protective measures in response to any terrorist threat.
The position continues to be that there remains no intelligence of any specific threat to the UK at present. That is monitored very closely. We remain vigilant, taking all the necessary precautions. We should bear in mind the need for prudence and for a measured and proportionate response that does not generate unnecessary public alarm.
Our first responsibility is the safety of the public. Since 11th September, the Government have been subjecting every one of our arrangements for securing that safety to the most careful scrutiny.
If the House will permit me, I shall run through the machinery for handling terrorist incidents. The Home Secretary has overall responsibility for UK counterterrorism. If an incident occurs, he uses the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms—COBR—to co-ordinate the Government's response. There are well-established alert procedures for such a contingency, which have operated successfully in the past. We have experience in that area.
We also have well-established procedures for managing the consequences of any incidents. Lead responsibility for that also rests with the Home Secretary in his capacity as chair of the Civil Contingencies Committee, which has a dedicated secretariat. As chairman of the CCC, the Home Secretary has been leading a thorough and comprehensive review to improve the resilience of the UK at every level.
In the light of the terrorist attacks of 11th September and the fundamental challenge that they presented to the assumptions that underlay our existing contingency planning arrangements, the CCC decided to commission a set of specific reviews. They were to improve the resilience of London; to improve the resilience of services that are vital to the life of the nation; and to deal with the threat of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism. The objective is to make sure that everything that can be done is done to enhance our resilience and protect our key facilities, utilities and essential services. The CCC draws together the key government departments, the devolved administrations and the police.
As I said on Monday—and as has been confirmed in the Answer that the Prime Minister gave to a Written Question—the sub-committees of the CCC have been carefully constituted to ensure that all the relevant organisations and stakeholders, including the private sector, the public sector and government bodies at all relevant levels, are involved. There are 10 working groups covering the key areas of the critical national infrastructure and they are carrying out detailed reviews. Their work feeds into the appropriate sub-committees. That means that all the necessary
280
professional expertise and operational experience has been assembled to help us to review and renew our plans.
All of the committees have been and continue to be extremely active. They are making sure that our contingency plans are reviewed and renewed in the light of new threats. They are identifying areas that are vulnerable to major terrorist attacks. They are also reducing that vulnerability through improved preparedness and by making sure that we have a better understanding of the dependencies and inter-relationships that characterise a complex open society. As my noble friend Lord Davies said, we are a democratic, tolerant and liberal society, and we shall keep it that way. If that means upping our defences to keep the society for which we fought so hard, we shall do that. We have to balance the rights that we use and bestow on people against the ultimate right that people want—the right to live. That is the top right; the rest of them are subsidiary to it.
I return to the list of the committees' functions. They are making sure that all reasonable precautions are taken; that guidance is brought up to date; that we have good communication systems in place; that we are as well prepared as possible; and that everyone knows how they fit into the overall picture, whether they work in the emergency services or in central, local or devolved government. Sometimes the work of those committees results in documents that are released to practitioners in the field. For example, the CBRN sub-committee—that is, the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear sub-committee—of the CCC oversaw the publication of co-ordinated guidance to local authorities, emergency services and the NHS on the response to the deliberate release of chemicals and biological agents.
However, by and large—and for obvious reasons—it is not sensible or helpful to elaborate on all the details of the work that is being done or on the arrangements that are being put in place. It has long been the practice of this country not to advertise its security and civil protection measures. I know that noble Lords will understand that that limits the extent to which I can be forthcoming with detailed answers to the questions that were raised in this debate. Of course, that in no way invalidates the questions; far from it. It is right that issues are raised. However, they need to be raised and answered in a way which is measured and proportionate and which keeps the public onside. That is not a question of Ministers saying, "I am a Minister. Trust me. We are doing what is necessary". There are teams of people working their socks off carrying through the processes in government, the utilities and the emergency services that I have listed. I assure the House that we will draw the Home Secretary's attention to the issues that have been raised this evening. Those issues will be put before the relevant committees to ensure that nothing has been overlooked.
I turn to the specific questions that were raised, although I cannot answer all of them. On London, I hope that on Monday I reinforced what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. On communication, I

281
went out of my way to emphasise that the key role of the Mayor in such circumstances is to communicate with the people of London. He was elected by the people of London, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, and he is fully in the loop with his team. He has already been out on the stump talking about the situation in London. He will have a key role in the communication exercise, should such events arise.
The noble Lord also asked about money for the extra police—or, as he rightly said, for the extra police hours. They are visible to most people in central London. That matter must be addressed; I can say only that that will be done soon. We are not oblivious to the fact that, as he said, it is costing some £1 million extra a week, over and above the original budget.
I turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who discussed thinking about "something else". There are people thinking the things that they hope others have not thought about, which could be added to the list. However, it is not possible to list them; it would be counter-productive. There are people whose job it is to think the unthinkable, and then think the unthinkable on top of the unthinkable. As I said, things have changed since 11th September.
On the issue of the wake-up call, there have been communications with the emergency planning authorities around the country. As I have mentioned, in respect of London they have all been contacted individually so as to review everything from the centre and to ensure that all 33 authorities are on board and up to date.
I have covered as much as I dare cover in the hope that I have been able to provide some confidence that the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords have been and continually will be addressed seriously by government in co-operation with all the emergency services and the utilities. I also hope that people feel assured about our being prepared, having emergency plans and taking proportionate precautions to ensure that such issues do not arise, but that if they do arise we can manage the situation.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, the only volunteer this evening. Although I did not agree with much that he said, none the less I am grateful to him.
I am delighted for the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He almost appears to have acquired a promise that he will get his money. That does not happen often in this House. Even if the situation was not quite as clear as he would have liked, I believe he received some encouragement.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for what he felt he was able to say. I am encouraged that the Government are putting much effort into tackling the kind of problems that we have addressed. I am sorry that the Government feel that it is advantageous to be so secretive about things. I do not
282
believe that terrorists are helped much by knowing the plans for dealing with the consequences of an attack on London. Terrorists are not generally people with the ability to frustrate such plans in any obvious way.
However, it helps ordinary people to know what is going on and it helps government committees. I remember from my days in MAFF, which has clearly improved since then, how many bad decisions were taken because MAFF committees never spoke to anyone outside their own little coterie. It helps to have the decisions, thoughts and conclusions of committees made open to the public when that can be done safely. I hope that the Government will give thought to whether that may be a better way to deal with the situation. At the end of the day, that may provide more reassurance and comfort to the public.
I am grateful to the Minister and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [H.L.]
7.52 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I am reminded that in the middle of the 19th century during Victorian times, Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol. When Bob Cratchet wanted to finish work early on Christmas Eve, Ebenezer Scrooge said,
"Every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding and buried with a stake of holly through his heart".
Mean words from a mean man. But even Ebenezer Scrooge allowed Bob Cratchet to have Christmas Day off to spend with his family.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, Scrooge bought Bob Cratchet a turkey on Christmas Day morning!
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, that takes it a stage further.
I bring the Bill before the House in an attempt to correct an anomaly in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and to protect Britain's shopworkers from being forced to work on Christmas Day. As a former general secretary of the shopworkers' union, USDAW, I have spent many years seeking to protect shopworkers from unlimited and often unnecessary extended shop opening hours.
That battle rumbled on throughout the 1980s and well into the 1990s. As many noble Lords will recall, in 1986 a coalition of organisations, including USDAW successfully campaigned against a proposal by the Government of the day to completely deregulate shop opening hours. That was a famous victory and one of the few that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, suffered during her time as Prime Minister.

283
In 1994 the debate on shop opening hours returned to Parliament with the issue of Sunday trading. Again, complete deregulation was defeated and so was the status quo. After much debate, Parliament arrived at a compromise which is known as the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
Earlier I referred to an anomaly in that Act. The 1994 Act does not allow trading by large shops on Christmas Day when it falls on a Sunday, but unfortunately, and unwittingly, it allows trading when Christmas Day falls on any other day of the week. That is not only illogical, but it also goes against the spirit of the 1994 Act. Protection for Christmas Day was inserted into the Act along with Easter Day, because both were recognised as important days in the Christian calendar. Yet, unlike Easter Day, which falls only on a Sunday, Christmas Day falls on all other days of the week and in 1994 few, if any, thought that Christmas Day trading would become commonplace. Regrettably, considerable changes have occurred in the past few years. That is why it is now necessary to correct that anomaly.
A further anomaly is the right of shopworkers to refuse to work on Christian holy days. One of the most important aspects of the Sunday Trading Act is that shopworkers are protected in law from discrimination for refusing to work on a Sunday. It is illegal for employers to dismiss or to deny promotion to anyone who refuses to work. However, shopworkers do not have the legal right to refuse to work on Christmas Day if it falls on a Monday, a Tuesday, a Wednesday, a Thursday, a Friday, or a Saturday. That is because there are, by error, no restrictions on trading on 25th December when it falls on any of those days. That cannot be right. In fact, shops can open for the full 24 hours when Christmas Day is on one of those days and shopworkers can be required to work on such days. That could never have been the intention.
I cannot believe that when the House passed the Sunday Trading Act noble Lords thought of Christmas Day as a less significant Christian event than all Sundays throughout the year or Easter Day. Yet, that is exactly the basis on which the current trading laws can be operated. For that reason the law needs to be changed. It also needs to take account of new developments.
Shopworkers have seen a continual drive towards longer trading hours over the past 20 years. The days of a five-day working week, with a half-day on Wednesday and Saturday morning only, are now a distant memory. Since then we have seen the introduction of all-day Saturday opening, Sunday trading, Bank Holiday shopping, late-night or 24-hour supermarkets and now even Christmas Day opening is on the increase.
Year on year, more and more shops are opening their doors on Christmas Day. At first small convenience stores opened. In the main they were corner shops staffed by their owners, offering a range of small facilities in a local neighbourhood. Then a chain of convenience stores began to open on Christmas Day, Spar shops selling mostly groceries.
284
Unfortunately, that example was soon followed by larger chains. For the first time, in 1999, J Sainsbury and, regrettably, many Co-op shops opened on Christmas Day. Last Christmas Day more large chains opened. J Sainsbury and the Co-op opened more shops than before and they were joined by some Woolworths and Budgens stores. Once some of the chains begin to open, it becomes difficult for all the chains not to open. We saw that happen with illegal Sunday trading in the 1980s.
As regards Christmas Day, this Bill will go some way to create a level playing field. There is no doubt that the vast majority of retailers do not want to open on Christmas Day, but they will consider opening if their competitors open. Such is the nature of the severe competition in retailing, particularly among the supermarkets.
Members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) believe that they were forced to work last Christmas Day. I choose my words carefully. Every store manager in the county would deny that he forces his employees to work on Christmas Day, but there is no doubt that coercion takes place. The only way to stop it is to prevent large shops opening on 25th December, as on Easter Day, in the first place.
The Bill is not just for shopworkers but also for families. Christmas is a very special time for families and no parent should miss it. It cannot be much good, and certainly not right, if when children at home open their presents and pull Christmas crackers mum is behind the check-out at a supermarket down the road.
For shopworkers Christmas Day should be the one day during the retail industry's busiest time of the year when they are guaranteed a day off. Retailers' gross income rises by up to 40 per cent in the run-up to Christmas and to achieve those sales shopworkers must work very hard. Most shopworkers are not allowed to take any holidays in December or January. I do not believe that it is too much to ask that they be guaranteed one day off during that period.
This Bill proposes a modest change in the law and applies only to large stores above 280 square metres, not small shops. It is not intended to bring about a dramatic change in the present law. This means that small shops that can be staffed by their owners can continue to open as and when they like. That is the case today. However, shops over 280 square metres need more than one member of staff. We then end up in a situation where shopworkers are required, or even forced, to work a day that they would much rather spend at home with their families. I believe that they should have the right to do just that.
This Bill was first promoted in another place during the previous Session of Parliament. It was given a Second Reading and completed its Committee stage during which the Government proposed seven technical amendments. All of those amendments were accepted, and the Bill now before the House is as the Government amended it. On that basis, I do not expect any further amendments from the Government.

285
This is a simple measure that will make a real difference to hundreds of thousands of shopworkers. The Bill addresses an anomaly in existing legislation. This measure is popular not only with shopworkers but the general public. It will ensure that Christmas Day—one of the most important days in the Christian calendar—remains special and is treated in exactly the same way as Easter Day at the moment.
In conclusion, the anomaly in the current legislation occurs in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994. This morning I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Not only does he support this Bill but he confirms that when the Sunday Trading Bill was before the other place he together with Sir Ray Powell tabled an amendment to prevent large shops opening on Easter Day and Christmas Day. That was the clear intention. However, paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 1 provides:
The exemption conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above does not apply where the Sunday is Easter Day or Christmas Day".
That cannot be logical because Easter Day never falls on a day other than Sunday. The conclusion is that there was a drafting error which came to light only when some large shops found a loophole and started to trade on Christmas Day when it did not fall on a Sunday. That is the long and the short of it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Davies of Coity.)
8.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, that this is a straightforward Bill to deal with an obvious anomaly. I know that I am by no means alone in being grateful to the noble Lord for promoting the Bill and introducing pertinent issues so helpfully in this debate. Quite apart from the earlier progress in another place which the noble Lord mentioned, the matter which this Bill addresses was raised by my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford when he put a question to the Minister concerned in 1999. He reminded your Lordships that Christmas Day was,
"a day of value in the life of the nation, both as the celebration of the birth of Christ and as a shared day of rest". —[Official Report, 2/12/99; col. 907.]
The Ethical Investment Advisory Group supports the evidence which has been presented tonight by the noble Lord. In its 1999 report, it noted the growth of shop opening from small stores to larger stores. That growth has now escalated, as the noble Lord indicated, to Sainsbury, Budgen, Woolworths and others. This was immediately a matter of great concern to the Church of England. After pressure from our Ethical Investment Advisory Group and other shareholders, Sainsbury agreed not to open in 2000. I understand that it has indicated that it does not intend to open this year.
The Ethical Investment Advisory Group is currently in correspondence with other companies, most of which have confirmed their intention to remain closed
286
on Christmas Day this year. Some do so out of a firmly held and fundamental opposition to the opening of larger stores on that unique festival day. Unfortunately, I understand that Woolworths has indicated to us that it plans to open again on 25th December. Allders and Debenhams have said that although they do not like opening on that day they may do so if they believe that that is necessary for them to retain market share. That is the nub of the issue.
As the noble Lord indicated, if one store opens others begin to feel that they must follow, albeit reluctantly. If the matter is not dealt with in the decisive way proposed by the Bill, it will get out of hand and the trend will become impossible to reverse.
My support for the Bill is prompted by two concerns. First, as I am sure noble Lords will readily understand, Christmas Day is a festival of fundamental importance to all Christians. Attendances at worship over Christmas are invariably higher than at any other time of the year. It appears to be anomalous that under current legislation Christmas Day not only is less protected than Easter Day but also is less protected than any other Sunday. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I do not believe that that was intended by those who drafted the Act, but that is how it is. It will not surprise your Lordships that from these Benches I support the argument of the noble Lord that from the point of view of large store trading, Christmas Day should be given the same status under the law as Easter Day and the other 51 Sundays.
My second concern is for those who will be required—the noble Lord used the word "forced", and I agree with him—to work if their store opens on Christmas Day. Whatever may be said by employers about protecting workers' rights and not forcing them to work, the truth is that since Sunday trading began many people have very little option other than to work on a Sunday, or, as is increasingly the case, Christmas Day, if they want to keep their jobs. The anecdotal evidence for that in my diocese is so overwhelming as to be, at least in part, very persuasive. It really seems to be the case that those who, out of religious conviction or a desire to be with their family, ask not to work on a Sunday often face losing their jobs. That is totally unacceptable. The strain that that kind of pressure puts on family relationships, especially where there are children, is wrong, and all the more so when it happens at Christmas.
Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, the concept of a shared day of rest is very important for the health of society. That is a view shared not only by Christians but by people of other faiths and of none. Research has convincingly shown that Christmas is a time when family and marriage relationships come under especially heavy strain. Invariably when that strain gets to breaking point, the relationship itself breaks down. That is in part because at that time of the year there is already extra tiredness, strain and stress. It is no exaggeration to say that if we allow Christmas Day store opening to get out of hand, we may find ourselves paying the high price of even more broken homes and separated families. Those statistics for this country are already far too high.

287
I support the view of the shopworkers' union that there should be at least one day off for shopworkers over the Christmas period and that there should be a day of rest, upheld by law.
Several large stores have indicated privately to us in the Churches that they would like to remove the six-hour opening on Sundays and to be relieved of that pressure to be trading on that day. We need to hear that. Certainly I strongly believe that we should take the opportunity now before us to place shopping restrictions on Christmas Day, on whatever day of the week it may fall.
On 2nd December 1999, the then Minister told your Lordships:
"I believe most people accept that Sunday is a special day and Christmas Day especially so … I shall play my part to ensure that it is protected in a way that fits with the traditions of our country". —[Official Report, 2/12/1999; col. 909.]
I very much hope that remains the Government's view. I pray that the Bill will be able to proceed.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I start by saying tritely that everything that can be said has already been said. But I shall then go on to make my own speech.
Certainly from the point of view of the shop workers and from a religious point of view the case has been well stated by the previous two speakers. The record will show that they have taken a great deal of care in putting forward their arguments. I sat here and listened to both speeches with appreciation. I smiled when the right reverend Prelate told us that Church authorities had been told privately by some of the larger stores that if they could they would undo the 1994 legislation.
That is the story of our lives. Before that Act was passed many of us argued, especially from the shop workers' point of view, that the Act would be rued. My noble friend Lord Davies, a dear friend and colleague over many years, will recall the exultation that he and his colleagues felt when I played a little part in defeating in 1986 the shops Bill. I saw Garfield in a photograph with members of the executive. They were drinking to the success of having stopped the machinations by the large stores to trade illegally, as they were. Times have changed.
We have now reached a situation where a union which I very much respect can recognise what I recognised—as was recognised before 1986: give them an inch and they will take a mile. You have to stand firm and not be persuaded pragmatically that there is an advantage in one year and one time. We all have principles. One of my principles throughout my life has been against Sunday trading. In all the arguments, for the life of me I could never see why people and stores, with the opportunity of trading all hours—they were not stopped from trading all hours—said, "In addition to that, we also want to trade on a Sunday".
Our family, which in a week might eat six loaves of bread, could go out on a Sunday and get more bread, or more coal, or buy more clothes. The opportunity to
288
meet one's needs was already there. But I say quite bluntly and crudely, the greed of the large stores and chains to maximise their profit drove them to fight for the right to open. My noble friend Lord Davies says that the six hours was a compromise. It was not very long before we saw moves to change from six to eight, because the argument was that people wanted exemptions from the six hours—traditionally say 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock. They wanted to open at 8 o'clock but they wanted to trade until 4 o'clock. It is a battle all the time.
One of my great memories here was forming a triumvirate with Harold Macmillan and Tom Denning. In 1986, as the Bill was before us, Harold Macmillan stood up from that Bench there and said that he did not join the Conservative Party to deprive shopworkers of their rights. He was not going to be a party to it. He would vote against the amendments that we were dealing with. On that occasion we lost an amendment by one vote. As I went out into the lobby, Tom Denning said to me, "Ted, come and sit here with Harold. We must have another try". Harold Macmillan said, "Yes". It was a four-clause Bill. Instead of a clause which said:
"Shop workers' rights shall cease".
The amendment took out the word "cease" and put in the word "continue". It then stated:
"Shop workers' rights shall continue".
When the point came up at Report stage we won by one vote. That one defeat caused the Bill to be delayed long enough for the Churches in the country to get to work on the constituency MPs. It was delayed for about three months. When the Bill went to another place, we won. That is where Garfield and his colleagues said, "Hallelujah" for many other people.
We now have the situation—and I am distressed to learn this—that some of the people who are trying to use the loophole are co-operative societies. I stand here with my Co-op tie. My allegiance is to the Co-op movement. I say, "Shame on those co-operative societies and everyone else who cannot be content with making an honest living out of the trading conditions but feel that they must with other people do this". Tesco's, Alders and Sainsbury's were mentioned. Sainsbury's has resiled from its attitude.
I subscribe to the view that there are many people who work on a Sunday now but who would rather not. At one time we talked about people who worked on a Sunday as getting a premium rate of pay. One of the reasons why the large shops decided they wanted to make Sunday like an ordinary day was so they could pay ordinary wages. The idea of paying premium rates has virtually disappeared.
I understand the procedure for private measures. USDAW is doing a good job for its members, but it is a pity that five years ago the union decided for pragmatic reasons that it would support the breach made in the dyke. We are now facing one of the consequences of that breach.
I hope that the Bill succeeds. The right reverend Prelate said that Sunday added value to the life of the nation. Overwhelmingly, I think that people would

289
support that view. Sadly, however, when it comes to wringing the last penny of profit out of running a store, some will listen to the argument but then proceed to try to get at that last penny. I understand the nature of competition and the pressure to pursue profits, but unless people stand up to it, the tide will rise ever higher.
My noble friend Lord Davies has done the House a service with the Bill, as has Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, who took the measure down at the other end. I hope that all those forces ranged against Sunday trading will continue to express their views. Indeed, I hope that the good sense of those who were in favour of Sunday trading will be brought to bear and that they recognise that the path down which Christmas Day trading will lead us is a path that is not in the interests of the life of the nation. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I have read the report of the debate on Second Reading in another place. It was clear that most, but not all, of the speakers in that debate were opponents of the original Sunday Trading Act 1994. I strongly suspect that that is also the view of the speakers in our debate so far. However, I have to say that I was a supporter of the Sunday Trading Act. I did not agree with complete deregulation, but I supported the measures proposed in the final legislation. I know that that will not make me popular tonight and I do not wish to reopen the debates held seven or more years ago as regards Sunday trading.
Perhaps it is more significant that I am happy to support this Bill. The points in support of it have been made very well. I shall not repeat them except to say that I do not know whether it was by accident or an anomaly that, in the earlier measure, Easter Day was included but Christmas Day, as distinct from Christmas Sunday, was not. Clearly, that was illogical and I believe that it should be changed.
The Bill specifically exempts smaller shops. That is absolutely right. Most of those shops are neighbourhood retailers, often run by a family, and often by those not of the Christian faith. For them, it is a reasonable way to earn a living and they provide what is for some in their areas an extremely valuable service. It is right that that should be allowed to continue.
However, I am worried about the trend which began in 1999 for the bigger stores to open on Christmas Day. I know that once one major store starts doing it, the pressure and the force of competition—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, called it greed—on others to do the same is compelling.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also pointed out that there was nothing new to say on the subject but that all noble Lords would repeat their arguments. However, I should like to make one point which has not been made and which I can put forward from personal experience. I am a councillor for a town centre area, a position I have held for many years. Over the past 11 years, I have represented the council on our
290
town centre management committee. I lived through the period when the pressure to allow Sunday trading was building, and then when the new trading laws were introduced. Incidentally, during that period we also decided to open our central library on Sundays. For the library, Sunday is now the second most popular day of the week after Saturday.
I believe that the benefits brought by Sunday trading outweigh the undeniable disbenefits. However, speaking as a town centre councillor, the people who have experienced the greatest disbenefit are those who live in or near a town centre. Even now I have to explain and apologise to my constituents for the disturbance. Whereas Sunday used to be the one quiet day of the week for those residents, now for at least six hours, and probably eight hours, that is no longer the case. The thought that they would be disturbed on Christmas Day, on whatever day of the week it fell, is indefensible. That is the one new point that I can bring to the debate.
For the reasons already outlined, I am pleased to give support from these Benches to the Second Reading of the Bill. I wait to hear whether the Government have amended it as much as they wish—I shall believe it when it happens. I hope that the Bill has every success in this House and, in particular but perhaps not so likely, every success in the other place.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have enjoyed all the contributions this evening and I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, for introducing what I believe is a very necessary Bill. However, I rise to my feet with some diffidence. Noble Lords will know that I am Jewish. I feel that commenting on the Bill is difficult because the religious implications of Christmas Day do not apply to me personally. The same can be said for other members of the population who are not Christian. However, they are of great importance to followers of the main religion of this country, the Christian faith. It is absolutely right that Parliament should pay full attention to their concerns.
Along with many Members of both Houses, I believe that in general businesses should be given the freedom to trade whenever it suits them, but equally we accept, and I believe, that it is absolutely necessary to protect the interests of those employees who do not want to have to work on Christmas Day. For all Christians, the Christmas festival marks an important day. Even for non-observant Christians, it is very much a family day, one which parents and children wish to spend together—and they should be able to do so.
I note that the provisions of the Bill are limited to large shops. Far be it from me to wish to intervene between the Minister and his noble friend who introduced the Bill—I would not wish to say anything that might upset the Minister—but when he mentioned that Scrooge went out on Christmas Day to buy a turkey, I have it in my notes that he went out to

291
buy a goose. Whatever it was, the fact is that there were no large shops in those days, so the small shops must have opened even then.
My honourable friends in the other place had a free vote and many spoke in favour of the Bill. I was most impressed with the argument raised by several honourable Members that the omission of Christmas Day alongside Easter Sunday from the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was clearly an oversight. Had the anomaly been noticed when the Bill was first introduced, it would not have been permitted. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill made that point clearly.
As my honourable friend the Member for Hexham said in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading in another place:
"I voted for liberalisation in 1994, and I thought at the time that we were protecting Easter Day and Christmas Day". —[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/01; col. 1323.]
If we allow transport workers and all but the most essential workers in the utilities and emergency services to have Christmas Day off, I do not see why those who work in shops larger than 3,000 square feet cannot do so as well.
I believe that this is very much a matter of conscience. I assume—I do not know if I am correct—that political parties would probably be neutral on the matter, leaving it to individuals to express their view. As I have said, when the Bill was introduced in another place my party allowed its Members a free vote. Although it is not the custom of this House to vote on the Second Reading of a Bill, I would vote in support of this measure. I very much hope that it has an easy passage and eventually becomes law.
8.29 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the way in which he introduced the Bill and on the support that he achieved in all parts of the House? He will not be surprised when I say that the Government are neutral on the Bill. Indeed, it is fair to say that we are doubly neutral on it. Not only are the Government neutral on all Private Member's Bills but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, reminded us, the Sunday Trading Bill was a matter of conscience and was dealt with on the basis of a free vote. That was the case when the Bill came forward for the Opposition, and I am sure that it would be the case on any subsequent proceedings now. Anything that I say about this Bill must be read in the light of that double neutrality.
I want to comment first on the history of the legislation; secondly, on the experience of what has happened since the 1994 Act was introduced; and, thirdly, on employee protection, which is so important to the Bill's promoters. Finally, I want to speak very diffidently about religion and tradition.
As I cannot conceal it from my noble friend Lord Graham, it is only right that I should declare my own interest and personal point of view. He knows that, although I have agreed with him on almost everything throughout our political careers, I disagree with him
292
profoundly in respect of Sunday trading. I do not happen to be a Christian or to have any religious faith, but I do not think that that is the issue. I am deeply prejudiced in favour of deregulation, of not telling people what they cannot do and, as far as possible, of allowing them to do what they wish to do with their lives, as long as they do not do it in the street and frighten the horses, as Mrs. Patrick Campbell said. That is my view. It does not influence the way in which the Government think about the Bill, and it can be put on one side by any Members who wish to do so.
Let me say a word about the history of the legislation. It has to be remembered that, before the 1994 Act and the aborted 1986 Bill, the prevalent legislation was the Shops Act 1950, which was nonsensical. Everybody who was involved in the earlier legislation will remember that the Shops Act discriminated on the grounds of what could be bought. One could buy a pornographic magazine, but not the Bible. There were many other examples, but the main thing was that it did not restrict trading on Christmas Day in any way. Although the 1994 Act was removing restrictions in other respects, it was imposing them in this area. Parliament took the view that trading should be restricted only when Christmas Day fell on Sundays, but not when it fell on weekdays. That was not an omission or error; it was the case because the provision was contained in the Sunday Trading Bill, so any attempt to restrict trading on Christmas Days that were not Sundays would have fallen outside the title. The approach of the 1994 Act was partial deregulation. People were allowed greater freedom to shop, but there were still provisions maintaining that Sunday could be different from other days of the week. The distinction was based on an area of 280 square metres, as I prefer to say, or 3,000 square feet, as some other people prefer to say. As has been said, there is a restriction on larger shops and it is reflected in the Bill.
The Bill would go beyond the Sunday Trading Act and introduce new regulation where none exists. The point that we must consider in the light of the arguments that have been advanced today is how that squares with our determination in every area that we can think of to reduce regulatory burdens. The Bill would certainly be a new regulatory burden.
The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, have referred to the experience since the 1994 Act was introduced. When the Act took effect, many people thought that the compromise would be unworkable. I thought so, but I was wrong. On the whole, it has worked pretty well. Shops have abided by the Act and there have not been many complaints. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about his town-centre constituents. A Budgens lorry drives past our quiet street early every weekday morning, so we have been rather grateful for the provision in the Act stating that lorries cannot deliver to their shops before 9 o'clock in the morning. More than half of people in this country shop at some time on a Sunday, but the effect is very marginal and represents an increase of only about 3.4 percent in sales and of 0.6 percent in profitability. Sunday

293
trading is done because of convenience to shoppers, and not really, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Graham, done out of greed.
Let us consider what happened last Christmas. Asda did not open any of its stores. Sainsbury's opened three stores, which was fewer than were opened in 1999, but they were all small. They were less than 3,000 square feet in area and would not be affected by the Bill. Safeway did not open any large stores. It opened 50 small shops out of 480, and they were attached to petrol stations. Budgens opened 91 out of 207 stores, but they were all 3,000 square feet or less in size. The Co-opopened 85 of its 4,500 stores. Only three of them were more than 3,000 square feet in size. Woolworths opened three stores in Southall, Birmingham and Slough, where one might think that the argument about serving people who are not Christian would be relevant. All those three stores were more than 3,000 square feet in size. The lesson that I draw from that is this: yes, there are ups and downs, but it is not a plague or an epidemic. It is happening in a few places, especially non-Christian ones, but it does not seem to be growing significantly.
On employee protection, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is right to say that the rights that are available for shopworkers who work on Sundays or who ask not to do so do not apply on Christmas Day when it is not a Sunday. Indeed, that applies to any bank holiday. But those rights must be a matter for negotiation between employers and employees. Employees who do not wish to work on Christmas day would generally be entitled to complain against employers if their contracts were varied without their consent. For example, they could do so if they were required to work on Christmas Day when they had not been required to do so before. Anybody who was dismissed for refusing to accept a contractual change would be entitled to complain of unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal. The Bill would legislate for the right of one sector of workers—only shopworkers—not to have to work on a particular public holiday. Whether or not one thinks that that is a good thing, it is not consistent with the way in which other workers are treated.
I shall tread very warily in talking about religion and tradition, because they are not my subject. None the less, I must say that my family observes Christmas Day. We do all the trimmings, as I think the saying goes. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is right, and that Scrooge bought a goose, not a turkey. We also tend to have a goose on Christmas Day.
It is common ground that those providing essential services have to work on Christmas Day. Priests of the Church of England have to do so. A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Great Ormond Street hospital with my wife, who was chairman of trustees, and with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his wife. He was working on a Christmas Day, although he was paid for it and I was not. It makes a difference. He was very noble about it, because he hates visiting hospitals. Clearly, however, some people have to work, but it is not new to suggest that there should be absence of
294
regulation, that we should take things in our stride and that we should recognise that there are people of different religions in this country. There are many people—and, whether one likes it or not, their number is increasing—who not only do not observe any religion, but do not believe in one either.
Personally, I admire the spirit of the Bill, but I think that it is in many ways inconsistent with some of the other things that we try to do. So, as I say, I have my own reservations, which people can take or leave as they wish. The Government are neutral about the Bill. We believe that it is properly drafted after the amendments introduced in the House of Commons. We do not believe that it will require significant amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wanted to intervene before he concluded his remarks because I wish to make an important point. He mentioned the religious element, but is there not also a social dimension? The emphasis so far has been one way. Workers should have an absolute right to be protected against having to work on Christmas Day—there must be absolute protection—and, as the right reverend Prelate said, there is also a social case for it in terms of the family.
But is there not also a social case on the other side? For some people, Christmas is an extremely lonely period and for them the opportunity to work is a way of social interaction. I do not think that the dimension that some people may want to work should be lost. It may be a small number, but one has to see both sides of the argument.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. The Bill refers only to stores of 280 square metres and above, which is a small minority of the retail trade and an even smaller minority of work as a whole. That argument cuts both ways as well, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will recognise.
However, the Bill is properly drafted and we would not wish to introduce amendments to it. We shall not oppose Second Reading or further proceedings in this House if your Lordships' wish it.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, particularly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, and my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I am also pleased with the contributions from all the Front Benches. One or two things have been said which require comment, but I shall not take up too much of the time of the House.
It is true that in 1994 there was a free vote on the Sunday Trading Act. Noble Lords will remember that the situation was somewhat unique because, for the first time, three options were placed before Parliament, from which a choice could be made. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that the Shops Act 1950 was in place until 1994. He is right. However,

295
between 1950 and 1986, more than two dozen Private Member's Bills were laid before Parliament in an attempt to change the Shops Act 1950. Every Bill was defeated. Although there was a free vote in 1994, there certainly was not a free vote in 1986. Noble Lords may recall that that was a time when the Conservative government had a majority of 140. It was only the fact that 68 Conservative MPs defied a three-line Whip that enabled the Bill to be defeated in 1986.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh listed a great number of stores which had opened, some of them small stores. That is true. However, it strikes me that this is the prising of the floodgates. If it continues, what we are warning against will come to pass.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to Sunday trading and pointed out some of its benefits. However, there are downsides. When we were campaigning against Sunday trading in the 1980s and 1990s, we made it very clear that, in the long term, overall trade would not be increased. Merely spreading trading hours over a larger number of days and hours would not necessarily increase trade. Subsequent reports have shown that to be precisely the case. Volume has not been increased or generated as a result of extending trading hours and spreading them over a longer period in the week.
However, we also said that in such cases—this has now proved to be the case—the costs of operation would be increased because you would be paying more but not necessarily achieving a greater turnover and greater volume of sales. That would mean that the
296
increased costs would have to be paid for. We said, nearly 20 years ago, that those increased costs would be met either by increased prices or, alternatively, by reduced wages, or a little bit of both. Whereas when Sunday trading was first introduced workers were attracting premium payments of as much as treble time, we now find that in most instances payments are back down to single time. Indeed, in some cases, Sunday workers only are being employed on a Sunday.
This Bill is primarily about removing an anomaly, protecting shopworkers and recognising Christian values in the festive season and Christmas Day. I have drifted into Sunday trading and extended hours in general because I have, if you like, bitten the bullet as a result of comments that have been made.
A point was made—it may be seen as a bit of a downside to my Bill—about whether some people want to work on Christmas Day as a result of being lonely. This is the first time that I have ever heard that argument. I do not know what evidence there is to support that view. I do not know whether the situation even exists. Lonely people will find pursuits other than going to work. Sometimes their loneliness is not taken away even if they are in a crowd.
By and large, I am very pleased with the response I have received to my Private Member's Bill. I therefore request the House to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  International Criminal Court
  International Criminal Court
  Diplomatic Premises Overseas
  Diplomatic Premises Overseas
  Israel: Occupied Territories
  Israel: Occupied Territories
  Population Policies
  Population Policies
  Passports
  Passports
  Ferrets and Gerbils in Breeding and Supply Establishments
  Ferrets and Gerbils in Breeding and Supply Establishments
  Asylum Applicants: Application Registration Card
  Asylum Applicants: Application Registration Card
  Lay Magistrates
  Lay Magistrates
  Newspaper Distribution
  Newspaper Distribution
  Waste Rubber Tyres
  Waste Rubber Tyres
  Foot and Mouth: Rural Recovery
  Foot and Mouth: Rural Recovery
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  GLA Precept
  GLA Precept
  Small Businesses: Rate Relief
  Small Businesses: Rate Relief
  Vehicles and Railway Line Safety
  Vehicles and Railway Line Safety
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line
  Middlesex Hospital Chapel and Murals
  Middlesex Hospital Chapel and Murals
  Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer
  Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Treasure Act 1996
  Treasure Act 1996
  Terrorist Acts
  Terrorist Acts
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
  Civil Employment under the Crown
  Civil Employment under the Crown
  Equalities Commission
  Equalities Commission
  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar: European Parliament Elections
  Gibraltar: European Parliament Elections