Sitting of 8 November 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    September 11
    Dr. Julian Lewis: When he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the economic implications of the events of 11 September and afterwards. [11326]
    Gareth Thomas: What steps he is taking to combat the funding of international terrorism. [11333]
    (Mr. Gordon Brown): Together the Governor and I attended last month's G7 meeting in Washington. Next Friday, the Governor and I will both attend the Ottawa meetings of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the G20. We are determined to take action to maintain the conditions for stability and growth. We will also agree at those meetings new measures to cut off the supply of funds to terrorism.
    This morning, the Bank of England has frozen the accounts of many individuals or companies on the latest terrorist suspects list, consisting of 46 organisations and 16 individuals. I can report that, after seizures of $10 million, more than $100 million—£70 million—of suspicious assets in 38 accounts have been frozen in Britain alone.
    When the Governor and I meet the IMF committee next week, we shall ask all 183 member countries to ratify in their domestic law the eight principles governing surveillance and seizure of suspicious transactions. As chair of the United Nations counter-terrorism committee, we will also offer to co-ordinate a central register for technical assistance to countries implementing antiterrorist measures. Now that asset-tracking centres are being set up in all major financial centres, we will offer London as an international clearing house.
    We ourselves will appoint an accountant from the private sector to head our anti-money laundering and terrorist finance unit. As I announced to the House on
    348
    15 October, we are proceeding to lay the appropriate regulations for a new supervisory regime for bureaux de change.
    Dr. Lewis: I am delighted to hear from the Chancellor that such firm action is being taken against terrorist finances. However, will he confirm reports this week from Government sources that the costs of the Afghan conflict have so far been relatively small? Has he discussed with the Governor of the Bank of England the warnings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other bodies that, even without the Afghan conflict, if the current rate of Government expenditure continues to increase as it has, taxes will have to increase?
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion. I have regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee is meeting today and will announce its decisions in due course.
    As for public spending, we will meet all the necessary costs of military action. We will also meet the costs of international development responsibilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those costs have been £60 million in the past few months. In addition, we will meet the costs for additional home security. All those costs will be met, and they will be met within the fiscal rules that we have established. We shall keep to our fiscal rules, as I told the Confederation of British Industry on Sunday.
    The hon. Gentleman says that we are spending more than the country can afford. Consequently, he wants to cut public spending. He will have to tell the House which hospitals and schools and how many nurses and doctors will be cut. He will have to face up to those questions if he makes such proposals.
    Gareth Thomas: I congratulate the Chancellor on his prominent role in co-ordinating a strong international response to combat particularly international terrorism. What progress has he made in attempting to agree international standards for combating the financing of terrorism? What help will he provide to poorer countries, particularly financial and technical help, to implement those standards?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those are important issues on which I believe that Britain has a responsibility to take the lead. Yesterday, I spoke to Paul O'Neill, the American Secretary of the Treasury, about measures that we will propose at next Friday's IMF meeting. It is important that we have a co-ordinated international action plan to deal particularly with the offshore financial centres that have not previously had in place the proper regulatory machinery.
    I am encouraged by the fact that all British dependent territories and Crown dependencies have said that they too will immediately implement legislation to curb the sources of supply to terrorist finance. I am also encouraged by the fact that, last week, at the Financial Action Task Force, where Britain was represented, 40 countries agreed that they would apply new principles to govern banks and the way in which they deal with suspicious transactions involving terrorism.

    349
    It is now our duty to help some of the poorer countries to implement those measures properly, as my hon. Friend says. We will work through the UN committee that we chair to ensure that special help is given to countries that want to have such anti-terrorist legislation and to set up monitoring units. I believe that all those measures will be agreed next Friday and Saturday when the IMF meets. The Conservatives should recognise the importance of those measures: I believe that they will want to support them.
    Matthew Taylor: I trust that the Chancellor will not be blown off course by what may be the short-term effects of 11 September in making necessary investment in education, health and pensions. On terrorism, although it is clear that the House must take the necessary action to tackle the use of terrorism funds, it must be carried out in a way that is properly public and properly subject to either judicial or parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Chancellor clarify how the freezing and scrutiny of bank accounts will be carried out, and how that scrutiny will be ensured? Will he also state how much has been frozen so far as a result of the action taken against terrorism since 11 September?
    Mr. Brown: In the past few days, £7 million has been frozen, which makes a total of more than £70 million. We are now working through the list agreed with the American authorities in the past few days, and further announcements will be made as a result. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—he raised the issue in our recent debate in the House—to say that we have to get the balance right between the need for security, which many people believe requires us to take further action, and the protection of civil liberties in our country. That is what we intend to achieve.
    There are three sorts of approved court order which have to be gone through before all the actions that I set out two Mondays ago can be taken. Under the court order to asset freeze or restrain, banks are asked to freeze a particular asset. The information order will require a bank to disclose information on accounts if it is not prepared to do so. Finally, there is the further process of the monitoring order, the details of which I have announced. In other words, when we take action—except action in respect of a sovereign state, in which case we would come to the House to explain that action—we will go through the proper procedures where it is necessary and as long as it is possible to do so.
    Mr. John McFall: Just over a week ago, with fellow Select Committee members, I met the Governor of the Bank of England when we discussed the sound economic platform that we have in this country. To use his words, we are particularly concerned to build a constituency for low inflation to maintain our good economic progress. Far from the economic statistics being bad, they show a sound economic platform in this country. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his action on terrorist funding. What does he intend to do through the FATF to ensure that proper sums are spent on tracking terrorist funds?
    Mr. Brown: I applaud the work that my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on the Treasury, which he chairs, do to examine the condition of the economy. It is
    350
    correct to say that 10 years ago, when the world economy slowed down and an international conflict was taking place, it was impossible for the Government of the day to reduce interest rates because inflation was running at 10 per cent., so the action necessary to get the world economy moving could not be taken by this country at that time. It is possible now to reduce interest rates, as has happened six times this year, because we have kept our inflation target for the past four years.
    On issues of terrorist finance, I believe that we will get international consensus on the need for action, but that consensus will require countries to take the necessary action. That is why we offer London as a clearing house for the exchange of information on the activities of terrorist groups which are seeking to launder money or to use underground banking. I believe that it will be necessary to build up an international database on the subject, so that we can take effective action against all the groups which are involved in terrorist action and using the legitimate processes of banking to launder money through this country and others. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take the necessary action, and that in the next few days we will make proposals that will involve the UN taking further action.
    Mr. John Redwood: In his discussions with the Governor, I am sure that the Chancellor has referred to the devastating economic consequences for public-private partnership in the rail industry of the actions of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Will he now tell the House how much money was owing to Rai1track this year under the 2 April agreement? How much of that has been withheld, and how much will now be offered or guaranteed to the new rail—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is extremely wide of the mark and I cannot ask the Chancellor to answer it.
    Denzil Davies: Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor ask the Governor to carry out a study into the financial difficulty of waging war that faces a country that does not have sole control over its currency or over the central bank, and if the power to borrow is restricted by treaty?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend has made his views on the euro known on many occasions, and I do not think that he has changed his views this morning. I know that the Conservatives say that they will not get over-excited about the euro, but whenever the word is mentioned, a new frenzy erupts on the Opposition Benches. The position is as I set out on Sunday. We will carry out the assessment against the five tests in the proper way. On the basis of the assessment, we will make a judgment on the questions that my right hon. Friend has put.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor agree that we should not exaggerate the degree of threat to the world's economic prosperity that is posed by acts of terrorism? Stock markets are often good indicators, and it is my experience that when there is an overriding mood of anxiety and caution, the bottom of stock markets is usually passed. Will he bear it in mind that the huge amount of liquidity being pumped into the

    351
    system means that there is a real danger of inflation two or three years hence, and that we should not now abandon our inflation targets?
    Mr. Brown: We will certainly not abandon our inflation target, and the Governor of the Bank of England and his MPC are making their decisions on the basis of that target. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the challenge posed by terrorism. It is important that we stand up militarily to terrorism, and that we keep moving the economy forward as best we can and are not diverted by terrorist threats.
    However, the world economy faces challenging times—times that will test us. To give an example, world trade was rising by 12 per cent. last year, whereas this year it is rising by only 2 per cent. or less. As a result, the benefit that we and other countries gain from exports is substantially limited. What happens to consumer expenditure and public investment in the UK is therefore all the more important. There are risks—even dangers. It is important that the world comes together, which is why, when the IMF and the World Bank meet next week, we will seek countries' agreement on what each continent can do to maintain stability and growth in the world economy.
    Mr. Michael Howard: As the Chancellor knows, we fully support measures to cut off terrorist funds. However, does he agree that there was cause to be concerned about the United Kingdom economy before 11 September? Was not the country spending more than it was earning, with balance of payments deficits occurring for the fifth year in a row? Was not Government spending growing at a much faster rate than the economy as a whole? Had we not fallen from ninth to 19th place in the world competitiveness league since 1997? Is it not clear that storm clouds were gathering over the UK economy before 11 September?
    Mr. Brown: First, I welcome the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) with his debating skills to his position as shadow Chancellor—the fifth Tory shadow Chancellor in four years. I know that to have someone with all the experience of being at the heart of the last Conservative Government delights the Conservatives, but it delights us too, and we look forward to comparing the record of the last Conservative Government with ours.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman quotes the world competitiveness league, but I seem to recall that under the last Tory Government we fell to 23rd in that league. He makes the point that we are spending more than we can afford. That must mean that he wants to cut spending. It has been his stated aim for a long time to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of GDP.
    Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. Let me tell the House what he said:
    "I believe our aim should now be to reduce the proportion of national output taken by the state towards 35 per cent. I believe that 35 per cent. is a realistic and obtainable long-term goal."
    That was from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the British Chambers of Commerce on 13 May 1997. If he is to go round the country saying that
    352
    we are spending too much, he must tell us which hospitals, which schools, which nurses, which doctors and which teachers.

    Business Promotion
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What recent steps he has taken to promote business activity in the UK. [11327]
    Adam Price: What additional steps he plans to take to increase output in the manufacturing sector. [11328]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government are committed to creating and maintaining the right climate for businesses to flourish, to invest and to grow. Of course, no country can insulate itself from world economic events, but the UK is now much better placed than in the past to weather the global situation. The Government will continue to steer a course of stability with low inflation, sound public finances and measures for investment, skills and research and development, which are so crucial for manufacturing industry in particular.
    Mr. Boswell: In the light of that reply, will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether he is concerned that last year the Government collectively introduced a record 3,865 new regulations? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who was reported in the press on Tuesday, when he stated:
    "You are a regulatory Government."
    For the sake of businesses large and small who are worried about their cost structure and their competitiveness, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when it will all stop?
    Mr. Smith: Of course it is important that we cut and minimise the regulatory burden on business. That is why we raised the threshold on statutory audit for small businesses, which benefited more than 100,000 small businesses. It is why, as we announced in the Budget, we are consulting on aligning the tax treatment of firms with the accounts that they prepare for statutory purposes, thereby cutting the paper trail. We are simplifying VAT administration, including raising the threshold for the flat-rate scheme and the qualification for annual accounting.
    The greatest burdens that we have taken off business are the 10 per cent. level of inflation, the 15 per cent. interest rates for more than a year and the ballooning national debt, which Conservative Members imposed on British business when they were in government.
    Adam Price: The Chief Secretary will know that there have been a further 70,000 job losses in UK manufacturing over the summer period alone. Will he not recognise that the most important factor in the problems of manufacturing over the past five years has been the persistent overvaluation of the pound? Will the Government not use the policy tool at their disposal to bring about a more competitive exchange rate by intervening in currency markets? That is called sterilised

    353
    intervention, which sounds a little painful, but it is a good deal less painful than what is currently happening to manufacturing communities.
    Mr. Smith: Most painful for manufacturing industry in Wales and for business throughout Britain would be a return to the instability that we have seen in the past. What we do for business is maintain conditions of economic stability, low interest rates and low inflation while introducing measures to stimulate investment. We have already cut corporate taxes on large and small businesses. We have introduced the research and development tax credit to help small businesses, and we are consulting on extending that measure to larger businesses. That is something that would be greatly welcomed by manufacturing industry in Wales and elsewhere. We have also cut the capital gains tax regime to stimulate more investment.
    Even in the current difficult circumstances, which manufacturing of course faces, manufacturing investment for the second quarter of this year compared with the same quarter last year was increasing. The Government stand behind manufacturing industry with policies for economic stability, investment and skills to improve competitiveness. At the end of the day, it is competitiveness that ensures the future of business and the jobs that depend on it, along with measures such as the new deal. The hon. Gentleman might have congratulated us on the contribution that the new deal has made to cutting unemployment in Wales.
    Kali Mountford: I ask my right hon. Friend not to take any lessons from the Conservative party, whose policies of instability and lack of investment cost millions of manufacturing jobs.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the manufacturing sector is moving at different paces even within itself, and that those companies that do well are investing? What does he intend to do to ensure that those that are not investing are incentivised so that the plant and machinery of the previous century is not the basis of the UK's economic future?
    Mr. Smith: I have already referred to the improvements that we have made in the capital gains tax regime to bring forward extra investment. I have referred also to the research and development tax credit, which is stimulating new investment in small businesses. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have also set up the regional development agencies, and we are establishing regional development venture capital funds to bring new investment forward. With the establishment of the manufacturing advisory service and the setting up of manufacturing centres of excellence in every region, including my hon. Friend's, there will be liaison with the businesses that she is concerned about. There is evident proof that the Government are committed to manufacturing and securing investment for the future, and to delivering on those commitments.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What action is my right hon. Friend considering in relation to the future of the electronics industry, with particular reference to the future of the Marconi site in Liverpool?
    Mr. Smith: As I have said, we have already introduced a research and development tax credit. We are consulting
    354
    on the extension of that measure to larger firms. That has been warmly applauded by business. I refer my hon. Friend to the initiatives that we are taking, through the regional development agencies, to ensure that where there are special regional areas of strength, such as the one that she has identified, we build on the research that takes place at a very high level in our academic and other research institutions so that "discovered in Britain" is translated into "manufactured in Britain".
    Mr. Michael Howard: The Chief Secretary is right to emphasise the importance of stability. Does he agree that a stable legislative framework is important for business activity?
    Was the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary or anyone else in the Treasury aware that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was to threaten the rail regulator with emergency legislation to prevent him exercising his existing powers?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his position clear on a number of occasions. His statement on Monday was followed by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister's questions. I have nothing to add to what has been said.
    Mr. Howard: Is it not the case that Treasury officials were present at all the meetings of the Secretary of State? Is it not the case also that the Chancellor and the Treasury were well aware of what was going on? Is not the only reason for the Chief Secretary's prevarication this morning the fact that he knows and the Chancellor knows that what the right hon. Gentleman did was absolutely utterly indefensible?
    Mr. Smith: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that giving Railtrack a blank cheque was the right thing to do, he does not have the support or the confidence of the people of this country. As I have said, these are questions properly for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. [Interruption.] He has answered them on the basis of the decision that he took— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Chief Secretary answer the question.

    New Deal (Long-term Unemployed)
    Gillian Merron: What plans he has to extend the new deal to assist long-term unemployed people to find work. [11329]
    (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since spring 1997, long-term unemployment has been cut by two thirds.
    From April 2001, as part of our continuous improvement in it, we have intensified the new deal for the long-term unemployed with our employment action teams and with the extension of employment zones.

    355
    Further help for the unemployed will be part of the discussion that will arise from the pre-Budget report, which I can tell the House will be on 27 November.
    Gillian Merron: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the experience of my local employment service, which has used the new deal to help about 2,400 people into work in Lincoln, but whose experience tells it that to assist small numbers of long-term unemployed people, or perhaps even those who have never worked, it is more expensive to provide training and support? I call on my right hon. Friend to take account of that in the pre-Budget report to ensure that we have the new deal funded and catering properly for those who are the hardest to help into work.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What has been done in her constituency and other constituencies can indeed be extended so that we can help those young people or adults who, for some reason or other, have fallen through the net and remain long-term unemployed. I am obviously in discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; we are trying to look at measures for areas where there are real problems that have still to be dealt with. It is time to consider the way in which we can extend the new deal and match what we do for people in long-term unemployment with what we are doing with Ambition IT, Ambition Finance and Ambition Construction; those initiatives meet the needs of employers by helping long-term unemployed people obtain the skills needed for the jobs that are available.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Chancellor may be aware that yesterday at 1 o'clock in my Fylde constituency, Snackhouse savoury snacks manufacturing business went out of business with the loss of 400 jobs. While we have had excellent support already from the Employment Service and the North West development agency, may I seek his assurance that, in spite of what his right hon. Friend has just said, he will re-examine, before 27 November, the costs that companies such as Snackhouse have had to bear as a result of new business costs such as the climate change levy, new employment legislation and domestic rises in local taxes? Companies such as Snackhouse needed help; so will their successors. Will the Chancellor assure me that he will look again at costs for business?
    Mr. Brown: Of course I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents who have lost their jobs. These have been difficult times for many businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector. When there are substantial redundancies, he should know that rapid response teams are brought in by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the relevant regional development agency, as he rightly mentioned, puts itself at the service of the company and employees looking for jobs.
    The way to deal with the problems that are faced is to run the correct monetary and fiscal policy. It should be noted that, this morning, the Bank of England announced that it is cutting interest rates by a further 0.5 percentage points; it is adopting a pre-emptive policy. Seven interest rate cuts have now been announced this year. The Bank of England adopted a pre-emptive approach in 1998 when there was a slowdown in the economy; it is doing exactly the same now. I believe that the cut will be warmly
    356
    welcomed throughout the country. As for individual measures, we have cut corporation tax and small business corporation tax; we have cut capital gains tax from 40p to 10p for business assets for more than two years. We are introducing the necessary taxation measures; for small businesses, we are removing the responsibility for audit, and allowing them to submit one set of accounts to the Inland Revenue, not two. We are also introducing a package of deregulatory measures that will simplify VAT for the smallest businesses in the country. In all those areas, despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, we have been cutting taxes for business.

    Income Tax
    Mr. John Smith: What recent representations he has received on future income tax policy; and if he will make a statement. [11330]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor receives a number of representations on 27/4/2549future income tax policy from a wide range of organisations. Changes to the tax system are considered as part of the Budget process.
    Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Given the crucial role played by small businesses in economic growth and job creation, especially in Wales, does he have plans to extend the 10p income tax rate to those very small businesses that are vital to the economy?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has a keen interest in the creation of employment opportunities in Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will no doubt take his remarks as a Budget representation. The principles that underlie the Government's tax policy are very much based on encouraging work, savings and investment. The action that we have taken to cut the basic rate to 22p and to introduce a new 10p starting band makes work pay, which can only be good news, not just for Wales, but for the whole country.
    Mr. Mark Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman stand by the commitment in the Labour manifesto not to increase national insurance contributions during the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Boateng: The commitment that we made in the manifesto was clear: it was a commitment not to raise the basic rate or top rate of income tax. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that no such commitment was given about national insurance contributions. He will also know that the Government simplified the national insurance system and made it easier and less of a burden for employers. That is good for employment and good for employers.

    Business Taxation
    Mr. Mark Hoban: What estimate he has made of the impact of recent changes in businesses taxes on the manufacturing and service sectors. [11332]
    Mr. Boateng: The Government keep all taxes under review and decisions will be made as part of the normal Budget process. Measures to build opportunity and prosperity for all were set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", which can be found in the House of Commons Library.
    Mr. Hoban: According to a recent survey by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, job losses have increased every month for the past five months; permanent job placements have fallen every month for the past six months. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore assist the work that the Bank of England has done today to reduce the interest burden on businesses by pledging that the Government will not increase the tax burden on British business?
    Mr. Boateng: We have the lowest unemployment rate for 25 years. The Government cut corporation tax by 3 per cent., so it is the lowest in United Kingdom history. We cut corporation tax for small companies from 23p to 20p. We have become the party of business and job creation. If only Opposition Members had learned that, they would not be where they are today.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that both the manufacturing and service sectors of business in Britain will benefit from Government policies to enhance and encourage enterprise? How does Britain compare with its international competitors as an enterprise culture?
    Mr. Boateng: We have the lowest corporation tax rate in the European Union. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that our new proposals on capital gains tax mean that we have a more attractive regime than that in the United States. By every possible indicator, this country is at the forefront of enterprise culture, which is entirely due to the measures introduced by the Chancellor since 1997.
    Mr. David Lidington: Has the Minister not recognised that statistics from his own Department show that this country's engineering output was down by more than 6.5 per cent. last year? For many engineering companies and others, the bill for the climate change levy far outstrips any compensatory rebate in national insurance. The Confederation of British Industry is telling the Minister that companies have to put people out of work so that they can afford to write cheques for his energy tax. Will he give a commitment to review urgently a tax that is already costing the country engineering jobs that we can ill afford to lose?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman's righteous indignation is not borne out by the facts. The tax of which he complains was engineered by Lord Marshall, the former president of the CBI. It enables us to deliver our Kyoto obligations and has been widely welcomed by industry as a contribution to ensuring that we have a sustainable environment. Across manufacturing and service industries, it is revenue neutral. The hon. Gentleman's allegation is without foundation.

    Terrorist Funds
    Mr. Harold Best: What estimate he has made of the value of funds held by suspected terrorist organisations in UK financial institutions. [11334]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The UK has currently frozen 38 bank accounts containing more than £70 million or $100 million of assets. We continue to examine the lists provided by other countries.
    Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend consider taking control of funds apparently amassed for terrorist activity and using them for another purpose—for example, providing aid and assistance to the victims of terrorism around the world?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a point about what happens when funds are frozen. When frozen, such funds do not automatically become the possession of the United Kingdom Government, otherwise there would be many representations for the use of such funds.
    As regards our international development responsibilities, which is what concerns my hon. Friend, we have not only increased our overseas development budget by 45 per cent., but put in an extra £60 million for Pakistan and Afghanistan. We stand ready to meet further international obligations in relation to refugees and the population in Afghanistan, and we will make further proposals for the Finance for Development conference that will take place in Monterrey in Latin America next year.
    We stand ready to work with all other countries to increase the international development assistance that is available so that we can eliminate poverty around the world, meet our international development targets on education and health and achieve satisfactory debt relief.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: While pursuing the funds of the murderous terrorist organisation that attacked the tallest buildings in New York, will the Chancellor pursue the funds of the murderous terrorist organisation that attacked the two tallest buildings in London—Canary wharf in 1996 and the NatWest tower, or tower 42, in 1993? That organisation is called Sinn Fein and it is inextricably linked to the IRA.
    Mr. Brown: The list of named terrorist organisations includes the Real IRA, and we are taking action in relation to it.

    September 11
    Ms Claire Ward: What assessment he has made of the impact of the events of 11 September on the forecast level of funding of (a) defence and (b) public services. [11337]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): It is too early to estimate the likely costs of military operations and other relevant measures, but as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear,

    359
    the Government will meet the costs of measures related to our response to international terrorism while continuing to deliver our spending plans within our fiscal rules.
    Ms Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give an assurance that he will listen carefully to all requests from our military in these difficult times, and to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? Despite Opposition calls for tax cuts and reductions in public services, will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to a 5 per cent. increase for all our public services in years to come?
    Mr. Smith: As we have made clear, because we planned our public spending on prudent and cautious assumptions and strengthened the public finances, we can say confidently that we will meet our international obligations while honouring our spending plans, which Conservative Members want to cut. On the commitment to our military, as the Chancellor made clear, the cost of military and humanitarian action will be met. When we give our forces a job to do, we support them.
    Mr. Edward Davey: If it is too early to publish an assessment, will the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary give the House an undertaking that they will prepare and publish such a study when the pre-Budget report is made at the end of this month? If the study shows that taxes need to rise to underpin the public finances, will the Government give an assurance that they will use only a fair tax, not regressive stealth taxes, to put the public finances right?
    Mr. Smith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the relevant information that is available will be published in the pre-Budget report. Any additions to the departmental expenditure limits will be reported to Parliament through the supplementary estimates procedure, in the usual way. I will not be drawn down the path of speculation, however tantalisingly he invites me. Those are matters for the pre-Budget report, the Budget and, in due course, the spending review.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If the events of 11 September require growing expenditure on humanitarian aid, military action, tackling world poverty and the economic consequences, is not it time to acknowledge that we are playing a new ball game? Should not we re-examine Labour's general election commitment to no income tax increases? Should not we begin to consider progressive taxation? Democratic socialism is often an answer to many problems.
    Mr. Smith: I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that democratic socialism is about keeping our promises, and we will keep each and every promise that we made in our manifesto.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that money raised in taxes to pay for defence and public services should be spent on defence and public services, and that the Chief Secretary has a duty to ensure that Departments get what they need and use what they get, is not he ashamed of the scandal of the past four years and the fact that the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health failed
    360
    to spend no less than £5 billion that was allocated to them—money that would have paid for 60 new Challenger tanks, the salaries of an extra 20,000 teachers and a further 70,000 heart by-pass operations?
    Mr. Smith: This is my first opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and his well-earned promotion to the shadow Cabinet.
    The Opposition cannot say at one and the same time that the country cannot afford our spending plans and that they want more to be spent. On the Ministry of Defence, thanks to the sound management of the economy and the prudent and cautious basis on which we planned public expenditure, the Government are increasing the real resources available to our forces, which the previous Government cut. As a result of the spending review, the MOD budget is going up from £23.570 billion to £24.980 billion by 2003–04. There could be no clearer proof that we are backing our armed forces and the MOD.
    The hon. Gentleman refers to the underspends. The way to plan military, health and education expenditure is to plan properly for the future and allow end-year flexibility so that Departments can properly work out expenditure from one year to the next, without the ridiculous end-year spending surge that occurred in the past. The figure for the MOD was 0.3 per cent.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Kevin Brennan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the prudent management of the economy, we are in a flexible position and can afford to proceed with our plans for public services, even if there is a downturn following 11 September? Does not that contrast with the previous Government, who brought Britain to the brink of bankruptcy?
    Mr. Smith: Indeed. Having exercised you with the length of my previous response, Mr. Speaker, I shall keep this one brief. The answer to my hon. Friend is yes.

    Agrimonetary Compensation
    11. Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on applications for agrimonetary compensatory amounts. [11338]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Treasury Ministers are in frequent contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on a wide range of issues.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Government's refusal to apply for monetary compensation for farmers indicate that they see no viable future for British farming?
    Ruth Kelly: We clearly understand the difficulties that the farming sector faces. This Government have drawn down agrimonetary compensation, in contrast to the Opposition, who never drew down a penny of it. However, in the current climate, the case for agrimonetary

    361
    compensation must be well made and it is better to pursue a targeted approach which encourages the sector to develop in a way that will help it to progress.
    We are achieving that through the England rural development plan, under which support is given for rural development and agri-environment schemes, and by continuing our efforts in Europe to reform the common agricultural policy. That is the right way forward for the industry, rather than putting more money into a quick fix or help for the agriculture sector.
    Paddy Tipping: Was not the right to agrimonetary compensation substantially signed away by Lady Thatcher at Fontainebleau with the effect that 80 per cent. of funding for agrimonetary compensation comes from the taxpayer, which is not the case for our European partners?
    Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment, but I would argue that the original justification for the Fontainebleau decision still stands. That justification is that the rebate compensated the UK for its relatively low level of EC receipts. [Interruption.] I understand how excited the Opposition get when those issues are raised.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Given the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), there can be no one left in the country who believes that the Government care about farmers and others living in rural communities. None the less, does the Minister agree that there is a reason to give Devon county council compensation for instigating its own inquiry into foot and mouth—an inquiry that will cost £25,000—in the absence of a Government inquiry into the disease?
    Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the Government are committed to achieving a sustainable future for the agriculture sector. Agriculture has been given a high priority, not least because of its considerable difficulties in dealing with foot and mouth disease.
    We are committed to compensating farmers as far as possible for the effects of the disease. Not only have we matched funding to voluntary organisations for the relief of distress, helped farmers on a case-by-case basis and compensated them for the effect on their farms and the welfare of their animals, but we are putting significant sums into the rural economy in general. We will continue to approach the matter rationally, so that we can pursue a viable strategy for the industry's future.
    Paul Flynn: Is not it reassuring that, in the recent general election, Labour recorded the biggest vote in its history in rural areas and returned its largest ever number of MPs from those areas in spite of the continuous barrage of whining and whingeing from the Opposition?
    Although there is great sympathy with the farming industry for its recent problems, before that period the contribution of the farming industry in England to gross national product was less than 0.5 per cent. while manufacturing industry's contribution to gross domestic product is more than 20 per cent. Is not it right to look to
    362
    the coming crisis in the manufacturing industry now, to make sure that aid is given where it should properly be given—to the manufacturing industry?
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend rightly points out that the Government's commitment to the rural economy was recognised at the last election, as it was at the previous one. Of course, we must consider the real difficulties in which the agriculture sector finds itself, and we are committed to working with farmers and those employed in the rural economy to think of a viable strategy for the future. That is why the Government are in the vanguard of pressing for reforms to the common agricultural policy in Europe, and of diverting money right back to the rural economy and away from the production subsidies that have done so much to create the problem in the first place.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Surely the point is that this money was available and the Government did not apply for it. Is the Minister aware that the average income of west Norfolk grain farmers has fallen to £5,000 a year? They have been getting rid of staff and cutting expenditure on local services, and they feel that this treatment is extremely shabby. Surely it shows that the Government do not care about the countryside.
    Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is altogether untrue. I take his comments as yet another Opposition plea for more public spending and I want the Opposition Treasury team to spell out exactly how they would meet such commitments. The right way forward for the industry is to enable it to restructure sensibly and rationally, so that it can compete in an efficient market. That is what we are helping it to do.

    Work Incentives
    Charlotte Atkins: What steps he is taking to improve incentives for those with children to work. [11340]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): To help families and to make work pay more than welfare, we have introduced and widened the 10p tax rate. We have reformed national insurance contributions and introduced the working families tax credit, including a child care component, which is helping to make work pay for more than 1.25 million families, giving a minimum income for a full-time working family of £225 a week. Building on those successes, we will introduce from 2003 a new system of tax credits that will allow further progress in supporting families in work.
    Charlotte Atkins: By guaranteeing a minimum income, the working families tax credit has been a real boon to families in Staffordshire, Moorlands, which is traditionally a low-pay area. What impact has the child care element of the working families tax credit had and has take-up increased now that there are so many more child care places in the local economy?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. If we are to help more mothers in particular to get back into work, we need to improve the number of child care places available. The child care tax credit was introduced a few years ago,

    363
    and 145,000 mothers and fathers now benefit from it. It is making work possible for tens of thousands of people who would otherwise not be able to work, and we are determined to do more on the provision of child care places and the child care tax credit. Of course, we could not provide those places if we took the shadow Chancellor's advice and cut public spending to 35 per cent. of national income.
    Mr. Michael Howard indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. I refer him to his speech to the British Chambers of Commerce on 13 May 1997, when he called for public spending to be cut to 35 per cent.—a proposal more extreme even than the Letwin plan.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Will the Chancellor enlighten those of us who come from a small business background as to the administrative costs of measures such as the working families tax credit? I understand that he and his colleagues have had the Carter report on that subject for at least two weeks. This vital report could provide support for small firms that find the cost not just of paying wages, but of administering the Government's proposals for the working families tax credit, such a burden. Will he make a commitment to giving relief to those small firms, rather than letting them struggle on in the way that they have?
    Mr. Brown: Obviously, we will publish the Carter report's recommendations and deal with it in the pre-Budget report as I have promised. The hon. Gentleman must remember that we have cut small businesses' corporation tax from 23p to 20p, and introduced a 10p band for profits of up to £50,000. We have therefore cut small businesses' corporate taxation by the order of £1 billion.
    The hon. Gentleman raises the question of regulations. The two issues that the Conservatives always have in mind are the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. Those measures help to relieve poverty and get people into work. I well remember the shadow Chancellor, when he was Secretary of State for Employment, saying that the minimum wage would cost 1 million jobs and raise inflation by 2 per cent. He went on to say, in 1991, that it
    364
    would push us out of the exchange rate mechanism. The minimum wage did not cost 1 million jobs; we have created an additional 1 million jobs.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What the additional expenditure has been on (a) humanitarian aid and (b) military action in Afghanistan and surrounding countries since 11 September. [11341]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Chancellor has made it clear that the Government will meet the costs of measures related to our response to international terrorism while continuing to deliver our spending plans within the fiscal rules. Additions to departmental expenditure limits will be announced to Parliament via parliamentary answers in the usual way. It would be inappropriate to give detailed figures about the costs of military operations and related activities at this relatively early stage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has announced humanitarian aid worth £66 million to benefit refugees in Afghanistan and in the surrounding countries.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for his reply and hope that we see the figures as soon as possible. May I draw his attention to the World Bank report published this morning? It talks of billions of dollars being dedicated to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and of the need to establish an international trust fund to oversee and co-ordinate that work. Is the Minister aware that it will cost $3 billion to reconstruct the west bank and Gaza over the next two years? Does he agree that it would be better to spend money on reconstruction rather than destruction?
    Mr. Boateng: The sum of $700 million was pledged by the international community and international institutions to meet the challenges of the crisis in Afghanistan. We are working with our international partners not only in the European Union, but in the United Nations, to meet the scale of the crisis.
    I think that all recognise our contribution—not just the £66 million to which I referred the hon. Gentleman, but the assistance we are giving to Pakistan specifically through writing off some £20 million of debt to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. All that is designed to ensure that our response is a generous one that meets the needs and challenges of these times.

Speaker's Statement
12.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: Before I call business questions, I have a short announcement to make.
In response to concerns expressed to me by a number of Members, I have asked my Chaplain to organise an inter-faith commemoration at 11 am next Wednesday, 14 November, in the Chapel of St. Mary Undercroft. There will be separate Christian, Jewish and Muslim prayers, and a time of silence, during this half-hour of commemoration. I hope that many Members will wish to join me on this significant occasion, as we pray in our various ways for justice, peace and reconciliation.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Animal Health Bill.
TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Discrepancies in the Accounts of the Secretary of State's Handling of the Decisions Relating to Railtrack". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not imagine that that comes as a surprise to the Opposition. The debate will be followed by a debate entitled "The Failure of the Government's Stakeholder Pension Scheme".
WEDNESDAY 14 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Sexual Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Football Disorder [Amendment] Bill.
THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill.
Motion to update the House Sub Judice Rule.
Motion relating to the Quorum of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 4 o'clock.
FRIDAY 16 NOVEMBER—A debate on public bodies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows
MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
Motion to approve the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001.
TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill.
WEDNESDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to be advised that the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill Committee and remaining stages are expected to conclude at midnight on Monday 26 November. We will table a motion next week to allow amendments to be tabled before Second Reading.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the details of the business. We are also grateful that the Chancellor has finally let us know that his pre-Budget statement will be made on 27 November. I am sure that that was due to inexorable pressure from the Leader of the House.

367
Given the universal raspberry that the right hon. Gentleman's announcement yesterday about so-called House of Lords reform seems to have elicited, may we have an early debate on the matter so that we can be quite clear about what, in particular, Government Back Benchers think about the White Paper announced to us yesterday? That might help to inform the consultation that will conclude at the end of January.
As the Leader of the House will recall, the Prime Minister once said that his Government would be "purer than pure". Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thought that the Prime Minister had financial matters on his mind when he said that, or was he referring to integrity and truthfulness? That would help to inform next Tuesday's debate, and give us something to think about over the weekend.
There has recently been an increasing and regrettable use of holding answers by Ministers. I think all Members—including, I suspect, many Labour Members—have found more and more of late that Ministers will not give a straightforward answer even to a straightforward parliamentary question. Will the Leader of the House look into the fact that there is some evidence that answers are leaked to the press before even being given to the House, and report back to us as soon as possible? That rather arrogant attitude is all too typical of the Government. A holding answer is given, and a reply is then sneaked out to the public in one form or another long before a substantive answer is given to the Member of Parliament concerned. I hope that that will be investigated and reported on as a matter of urgency.
Finally, can the Leader of the House confirm that on Monday 19 November the motion to approve the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 may well be subject to the ghastly and unparliamentary deferred Division procedure? It is utterly unacceptable that such an important and substantive measure should be dealt with in that way. Surely even the Leader of the House would acknowledge, even were he to argue that lesser matters such as statutory instruments should be subject to the procedure—I do not accept that for a minute, but Labour Members have produced such arguments—that an issue of substance and importance such as derogations from the Human Rights Act cannot be subjected to an arrangement whereby a debate can take place on one occasion, followed by a vote several days later.
Mr. Cook: Before I respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions, it may be convenient to the House if I announce business in Westminster Hall. [Interruption.] If the House does not want to hear it, I have no wish to detain the House; but my announcement may be convenient to those who take part in the debates.
THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER—Debate on social inclusion and sport.
THURSDAY 29 NOVEMBER—Debate on the report from the Public Administration Committee entitled "Public Participation: Issues and Innovations".
THURSDAY 6 DECEMBER—Debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Government policy towards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia following the fall of Milosevic.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have now announced that the pre-Budget report will be presented to the House on 27 November. That is broadly in line with
368
the experience of recent years. [Interruption.] I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that that happens to be true. The statement is normally presented in late November. [Interruption.] The Opposition have been asking for the date of the statement for the past three weeks, and now they have it. I appreciate their gratitude; we shall try to make them happy on future occasions.
I can, in fact, make the right hon. Gentleman happy in responding to another of his questions: there will definitely be a debate on the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, and I expect such a debate to be held in the other place as well. This is a period of consultation, we want wide consultation, and we certainly want to hear the views of Members on both sides of the House. I hope that by the date that we announce the debate, it will have been possible for the Opposition to reach a conclusion on their own plans for reform of the House of Lords.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned next week's Opposition day. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has repeatedly answered the questions put to him, and he will be happy to come to the House next week and answer them all over again. I should warn the Opposition, however, that there will be a question for them as well. Over the past few days, they have adopted a pose of actually believing that the shareholders' demand for £3.60 a share should be met, although they have been careful not to say precisely that because they know perfectly well that it would cost £1 billion of taxpayers' money—money that Labour believes should be spent on passenger safety rather than shareholders.
On Tuesday, we shall want to know whether the Opposition are willing to put public money into that demand. If they cannot confirm that that is the case, I wish they would stop pretending and expressing crocodile sympathy for the shareholders.
On leaks of replies, two weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman chided me about Ministers going on the "Today" programme before making a statement to the House. I have checked the record. I am pleased to say that no Minister since the last general election—no Minister during this Parliament—has gone on the "Today" programme before making a statement, other than in cases such as Northern Ireland and international terrorism where the subject was very much a matter of public debate anyway. However, two leading members of the Opposition have gone on the "Today" programme to say what they thought about a statement that they had not heard. Perhaps he will draw to his colleagues' attention the same message that I have given, which is that views should be first announced in the House rather than on the "Today" programme.
The right hon. Gentleman has always resisted the deferred Division; he has never liked it. I do not object to him opposing it on this occasion, but I remind him that deferred Divisions have produced much bigger results—a much larger number of votes. If he regards the order as an important measure, it is surely one on which he would welcome the larger vote that we will get on a deferred Division.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I draw to the Leader of the House's attention the campaign by the Central Manchester primary care trust to persuade

369
vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly and those with conditions such as respiratory illnesses, of the need to have flu vaccinations. I hope that he will tell the House that the Government are fully behind that campaign because it is good for the individual, saves lives and prevents beds from being blocked at the worst time of the winter.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the local hospital on its campaign. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department of Health and the Government want to ensure that we have as much success as possible in making protection available to elderly people against influenza.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May we have an urgent statement from the Government on the implications of the resignation of the First Minister of the Scottish Administration? The Leader of the House will be aware that the matter that appears to have caused the resignation relates to the First Minister's membership of this House and our rules for Members. May I ask that those implications be explored with a proper ministerial statement and an opportunity for us to cross-question?
As has already been mentioned, there will be a debate on Railtrack, but may I ask that the Government's position on privatised companies—what we used to call public utilities—be explained more fully, particularly in relation to the chaos, confusion and public criticism of what is going on in British Airways and British Telecom? It seems that if we are not careful the taxpayer will pick up the bill for the incredible incompetence of the previous Government in the way that they sold off the family silver, as a previous Prime Minister put it. Can we have an express statement from the Government on their precise view of taxpayers' liability in relation to those shareholders—big institutions and, of course, directors themselves—who may have mismanaged those companies to that extent since the sell-off?
I remind the Leader of the House that the electricity in this Chamber and in this building is owned by a French Government-owned company, so French taxpayers benefit from the charges that we have to pay.
Mr. Cook: On the resignation of the First Minister, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that Mr. McLeish is making a personal statement at 2 pm, and it would not be right for any of us to speculate on the details until we have heard from him. Should any further action be required in this place, we have the machinery to take such action. I am sure that that machinery is perfectly capable of undertaking a charge.
The only thing that I would say at the present time is that, personally, I have had Henry McLeish as a colleague and a friend for two decades. I have come to respect immensely his commitment to public service. I am sure that he will continue to give the same commitment to his constituents.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the debate on public bodies. It is right that those bodies that are appointed to carry out part of the functions of the Government, albeit at arm's length, should be subjected to scrutiny in the House. That is why we have decided that it is right for the House to have a full day's debate on those matters.
370
For the very reason that the hon. Gentleman suggested, it would not be proper in that debate to discuss the privatised industries. Since they have become privatised, the liabilities that they incur are their liabilities. They are not the liabilities of the Government.
Roger Casale: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the French National Assembly has this week hosted a convention for organisations in civil society to engage those organisations in the future of Europe debate. Will he consider increasing the role that this Parliament can play in stimulating a much wider debate in Britain about the future of Europe and in particular, as part of that debate, increasing the role and effectiveness of national scrutiny through the Select Committee on European Scrutiny?
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government favour the widest possible debate on the future of Europe. Indeed, we now have a period in which to carry through that debate in advance of the intergovernmental conference in 2004. It is important that that debate should range widely: not just over the narrow question of institutional amendments, but over the nature of the Europe that we wish to construct and how to achieve the right balance between the European institutions, the member states and the regional bodies.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on the plight of arable farmers? That would give hon. Members the opportunity to comment on the fact that the Government failed to pull down the agrimonetary compensation that they could have pulled down at the end of October, and that those farmers—many of them in my constituency—face falling farm incomes, crop prices that are a fraction of what they were just four or five years ago, and nasty foreign imports being sucked into the country because of the weak euro.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's last comment is entirely in line with the spirit of the common agricultural policy, which many farmers wished us to join when we signed up to the European Community, but the Government are well aware of the situation in the farming industry and have given great attention to it. That is one of the reasons why we will have a debate on a Bill from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the coming weeks, when I am sure the hon. Gentleman and many others will make their points about the farming industry. It is also why we have created a new Department that brings together the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the wider interests of the countryside to ensure that we can take a wider view in addressing the future of the rural economy.
Mr. Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend's commitment to reforming and modernising our democratic institutions is well known, well respected and most welcome. [Interruption.] Wait for it. But is he aware that the wholly inadequate proportion of elected Members in the revised second Chamber proposed in yesterday's White Paper almost guarantees that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of achieving the consensus that he seeks on the Labour Benches, never mind across the House or the country at large? Given that more than

371
140 Labour Members have signed early-day motion 226, does he recognise that there is a contradiction between seeking consensus and forcing an unpopular and unworkable measure through on a whipped vote?
[That this House supports the democratic principle that any revised Second Chamber of Parliament should be wholly or substantially elected.]
Mr. Cook: I much preferred my hon. Friend's premise to his question. On his concluding point, I assure the House that we have put the matter out for consultation. I said so repeatedly in the course of the statement yesterday. This is the first day of the consultation and I therefore think that it might be premature to draw conclusions, but we seek consensus and I hope that the consultation will enable us to get closer to one.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the subject of Government appointments? In the past few weeks, we have seen the scandal of Jo Moore and her remaining in post, and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions apparently making misleading statements to the House, if one is to believe the Rail Regulator appointed by the Government and the chairman of Rai1track, whom the Government were offering the chairmanship of their new body—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman meant to say, "Apparently making misleading statements to the House". I do not think that he would want to attribute that to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The best thing that the hon. Gentleman can do is withdraw that remark and then he can continue with his question.
Mr. Hawkins: I do withdraw that remark. May I say that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions may have been guilty of terminological inexactitude to the House, and we also now have the circumstances that have led to the resignation of the First Minister? Those are important matters affecting the dignity of the Government. Will the Government provide time for such a debate?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman kept twisting his words to come back to the same bogus assertion: that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has misled the House. He will be in the House next Tuesday when he will robustly deny any such allegation, and he will have the full support and confidence of Labour Members in doing so.
Next week's debate arises only because the previous Conservative Government carried through a privatisation of the railway industry that has totally failed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members cannot now deny that their Government privatised Railtrack. They even provided the basis for administration of the kind that we have put Railtrack into. They provided the basis under which Railtrack turned out to be a black hole that swallowed public money, and they now want us to give it more public money rather than put the passenger first.
Ms Joan Walley: There is continuing concern in my constituency about the number
372
of people on fixed-term contracts. Is there any prospect of a debate on the draft regulations on fixed-term workers, which were due to come into force on 10 July but have now been postponed? I welcome today's publication of the Employment Bill. May we have a debate in the near future about employees' rights so that we can be sure that employers are not evading their legal responsibilities in respect of their work force?
Mr. Cook: I am pleased to confirm that there will be a debate in the near future on the Employment Bill, which includes matters relevant to the regulations on fixed-term workers. My hon. Friend can raise those concerns and any others relating to workers' rights during that debate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that the completion of the natural gas pipeline to Northern Ireland is helping to deal with CO2, emissions. However, Phoenix Natural Gas continues to invest private money in the development of that pipeline although the gas comes from the North sea. I understand that the profit made as a result of that pipeline has not been distributed equitably to different outlets. As a result, Phoenix will receive £500,000. Apparently, because of the regional divisions, there is no equality. Will the Leader of the House have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether the regulator should be consulting more with the regulator in Northern Ireland and with the Minister responsible for this matter in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the completion of the gas pipeline. I take on board his point about ensuring that any proceeds are shared fairly. I shall certainly take his advice and draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the increasing public interest in the successive drafts of the report on energy policy being prepared by the performance and innovation unit? When the report is completed, will it be published immediately or simply be presented to Ministers for their deliberation? When it is published, will there be a statement to the House? Can he confirm that there will be a full debate on the report? Will it be subject to public consultation or will it simply set out the details of Government policy, which will then be fixed?
Mr. Cook: I anticipate that if a report on energy policy is brought before the House and the public, the Government will be expected to show a lead and indicate the lines of their strategy. It is an important issue and I would expect it to have the fullest exposure in public and in Parliament.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In view of the widespread concern among our constituents about the state of the health service, will the Leader of the House arrange for a regular debate, say once a month, in the presence of the Prime Minister, so that we can monitor his solemn pledge to the British people at the general election to introduce a world-class public health service?

373
During his busy day, will the Leader of the House look at column 236 of yesterday's Hansard where the Prime Minister said that when his Government took office
"there were no new hospitals being built".—[Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol.374, c. 236.]
Will he then study the list of new hospitals opened in 1997 where he will find that at least five new hospitals were opened in addition to myriad other schemes? He will also see that a similar number opened in 1998.
Mr. Cook: I am pleased to remind the hon. Gentleman that he will have an opportunity to debate health in the near future during the Second Reading of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which I announced in the business statement. We look forward to every possible opportunity to debate the health service so that we can draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the facts that we are putting in twice as much in additional resources as his Government ever did; that we have 3,000 new nurses since the last election was called; that every year in Britain, 500,000 more patients receive elective surgery; and that 1 million more out-patients receive appointments. It is a fine record and we intend to build on it.
David Winnick: Had there not been a change of Government four years ago, there would have been no change in the House of Lords. I have always opposed a fully elected second chamber. I did so in the 1980s when there was a feeling among Labour Members that it should be fully elected. I opposed it for all the reasons that my right hon. Friend has given. A fully elected second chamber would be a powerful rival to this House. Will he accept, however, that having only 20 per cent. of members elected is far too low? During the consultation, which he mentioned again today, I hope that it will be recognised that the minimum number of elected members should not be less than one third.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, which I endorse. We are debating reform of the House of Lords only because of the change in Government. The Conservative party was in power for 18 years and never showed the least interest in any proposal for reform of the House of Lords. I agree that there is a strong case for ensuring—this view is shared by many hon. Members—that we are careful not to end up with a wholly elected second chamber, which would undoubtedly be a rival to the House of Commons and result in a shift of power.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: That would be a good thing.
Mr. Cook: I do not remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that when his party was in office for 18 years. I am repeatedly urged by Conservative Members to strengthen the powers of the House of Commons. It seems odd that they should urge upon us a course of action that would undoubtedly result in a weakening of those powers. On the balance of elected members, as I said yesterday, there is a legitimate area of
374
debate about how large the elected element should be. I expect that to be at the centre of the consultation exercise on which we are embarking.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Leader of the House think that it is conceivable that the chief executive of BMW, the chairman of Railtrack and now the Rail Regulator should all have contradicted the accounts given by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at the Dispatch Box about his meetings with them? Surely before next Tuesday's debate, the honourable thing would be for the Secretary of State to come to the House and resign in the same way as the Scottish First Minister has today.
Mr. Cook: I am glad that the business statement has given Conservative Members an opportunity to rehearse their speeches for next Tuesday, which is where they properly belong.
Mr. MacKay: This is a serious matter.
Mr. Cook: It is indeed. The right hon. Gentleman is larding out accusations as if they were frivolous. If, as he now claims, the chairman of Railtrack did not come to my right hon. Friend and say that the company would not be a going concern by next November without more cash, he needs to explain why he did not say that. Two days later his officials arrived at the Department to negotiate specifically to secure that additional cash to enable it to continue as a going concern. The conduct of Railtrack, its officials and its chairman in the weeks that followed that meeting was entirely consistent with my right hon. Friend's account of the meeting.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Could my right hon. Friend find time for us to debate the rules governing the fitness of people to be directors of companies in this country and the insolvency procedures? I am asking because, during the past few weeks, about 100 employees at the Zephyr Cams company in my constituency have had to watch while machinery was removed from the shop floor. They have been aware that any revenue flowing into the company has been immediately transferred out of it. All that time, the management has refused to meet or say anything to the employees. The company is now in receivership. The employees fear that there will be nothing left of it for their redundancy payments, and many creditors have been left high and dry.
It has now been revealed that the same thing happened a few years ago, involving the same owner, to two companies using the name Quality Engineering Products, based in Weston-super-Mare. Resources from those companies were transferred to Zephyr Cams, involving £2 million of unpaid debt. Now it is believed that the resources from Zephyr—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I expect brief questions. The hon. Gentleman's question has been far too long; I must ask him to sit down.
Mr. Cook: I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to put that on the record; his comments make a very disturbing story. The DTI is at present engaged in consultation, with a view to changing the law relating to bankruptcy and insolvency. My hon. Friend may wish to

375
feed his views into that process. Our objective will be to try to present to the House legislation that ensures that those who become insolvent in all innocence have the opportunity to make a fresh start, but that enables us to be robust in identifying and barring rogue traders who have taken advantage of those who supply and work for them.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It would be helpful if we had a debate early next week on how the Government's proposals on the House of Lords have been contrived. We are entitled to know which of the 243 Labour peers appointed by the Prime Minister were involved in that process. After all, they have a direct interest in ensuring an unelected House. Is it not absolutely intolerable that the two leading Ministers in the formulation of policy appear to be the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House of Lords—neither of whom have in any way condescended to stand for election to public office? Is not that shameful, even by the standards of Ceausescu's Romania?
Mr. Cook: It would be an extraordinary proposition that the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House of Lords should not be involved in the preparation of the document— [Interruption.] I do find that a preposterous suggestion. I am not entirely surprised that the tight hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) regards it as common sense, but to everyone else it appears preposterous. I would not want to take any credit for the White Paper from the Lord Chancellor.
This is the second time this week and—I have lost count, but something like—the seventh time in this Parliament that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has offered a proposition that is flatly in conflict with his conduct during the 18 years of the Conservative Government, for whom he was a Minister. I have no problem with him saying that he had got it wrong, wished that he had done something different, had changed his mind and had recognised his mistakes, but I rather wish that he would stop expressing his views as though he were right all along and that all the previous Government's mistakes were as a result of decisions taken by others while he was out at the loo.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's promise of a debate on the House of Lords, but given that many Labour Members were still standing following 25 questions, on his statement yesterday, as we had to move to other pressing business, should we not have that debate at an early date, before consultation ends? Some of us feel that although it is right to get rid of the privileges of birth, those privileges should not be replaced by the privileges of position and connections. If there were such an early debate, some of us would have the opportunity to show that the argument that the position of the House of Lords in comparison with the Commons would be enhanced by democratic elections is spurious, because no powers can be passed to the Lords unless this House agrees to do so.
Mr. Cook: I do not think that my hon. Friend would find it quite so easy to stand pat on that view if the second Chamber were claiming as good a democratic legitimacy as this Chamber. That is not the nature of the real political world. Of course the debate must be timely. Two weeks
376
from now, we shall be heavily engaged in the anti-terrorism Bill, which we all know is of great gravity and urgency to our people—ensuring that we provide them with the best possible security. I would hope that we would find an opportunity to debate House of Lords reform as soon as is reasonable.
Pete Wishart: With the loss of the right hon. Gentleman's former hon. Friend as First Minister of Scotland this morning, and the possible emergence of a job opportunity for him, will he find time for a debate on the remit of the Secretary of State for Scotland's consultation on numbers of Members of the Scottish Parliament, so that we do not lose any more?
Mr. Cook: The issue of numbers of MSPs and, indeed, of Scottish Members of Parliament in this place has been aired on a number of occasions, not just in business questions but at other times in the House—and no doubt will continue to be so aired. Of course, we debated the matter when we passed the Scotland Act 1998, committing ourselves to a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of this Parliament. With that inevitably comes a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did not object to those provisions in the Scotland Act.
The former First Minister will be making a statement in an hour's time, and he should be allowed to speak in his own words. All I would say is that Henry McLeish was my friend this morning, and he will be my friend this afternoon.
Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the crisis in the Children's Society in Wales, which announced earlier this week that it was pulling out of Wales, closing all its projects and making all its staff redundant? Will he draw that matter to the attention of his ministerial colleagues and ask them to use any influence that they might have on the Children's Society nationally in order that it reconsiders its decision to withdraw from Wales?
Mr. Cook: I understand entirely the concern that the decision must be causing to my hon. Friend's constituents. I shall certainly draw her comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I remind the Leader of the House of Her Majesty's Government's pledge to hold regular debates on London matters, notwithstanding the passage of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Is not it imperative that we have such an early debate so that we can discuss the future, if there is one, of the public-private partnership for London Underground, the implementation of which is four and a half years late? That cannot all be blamed on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, notwithstanding his totally incredible statements on Railtrack.
Mr. Cook: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for saying that such matters cannot all be blamed on my right hon. Friend. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the PPP has been so long delayed because of difficulty in reaching agreement with Mr. Kiley and the Mayor of London.

377
I remain mystified as to why it is not possible for them to find common ground with us. After all, we are offering £4,000-worth of investment for every household in the Greater London area. If such a sum were offered to my local authority to invest in my area, it would certainly find a way of getting its hands on it.
John Cryer: In response to three questions from Labour Members, my right hon. Friend has said that the plans for the House of Lords are out to consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said yesterday, the most recent Labour party conference voted for a largely elected upper House by something like 3 million votes to a few hundred thousand. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a pretty decisive contribution to consultation?
Mr. Cook: As I recall the entertaining intervention yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), he referred us to the 1976 decision, in which a similar majority voted to abolish the second Chamber in its entirety. So, we have a rich tapestry of guidance from which to draw. I shall obviously listen with great respect to responses from the Labour party and other parties in the next three months.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Leader of the House had the chance to study the evidence given to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee yesterday, in which the Rail Regulator gave a very detailed and well documented account of his meetings with the Secretary of State and Railtrack's chairman and chief executive? Although I welcome the Opposition day debate next week on the mishandling of Railtrack, would not it have been better for the Secretary of State to have come to the Dispatch Box to explain in Government time why their two accounts are so wildly different?
Mr. Cook: That is a question that also falls to the Rail Regulator to explain. On reading his evidence, I was much impressed that the Rail Regulator also blasted Railtrack, stating that it was remarkable that it had kept so much information from him. There is a lot to be explored in the evidence, much of which will take us back to the previous Government, who designed Railtrack in the first place.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the deplorable decision to mount a leak inquiry inside the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to find out who leaked the dreadful e-mail from Jo Moore about it being a good day on 11 September to bury bad news? Is it not quite astonishing that the person who leaked the e-mail might lose his or her job while the person who wrote it retains hers? I would have asked for a statement from the Minister with responsibility for freedom of information, but I think that that post may
378
have been abolished, along with the Government's commitment to open government and public accountability as defences for leaks.
Mr. Cook: As I recall, the statement about the investigation was made by the Cabinet Secretary and not by any Minister at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The hon. Gentleman is a man of great talent, integrity and experience. I do think that the time has come for him to move on to another subject.
Chris Grayling: I fear that the Leader of the House may not have fully understood the questions about the circumstances this week relating to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I am a new Member and it was my understanding that the validity and accuracy of statements made by Ministers to this House was absolutely sacrosanct. The Leader of the House will be aware that, on Monday, the Secretary of State told the House that no threats were made to the Rail Regulator when they met on 5 October. In public evidence yesterday to the Select Committee, the Rail Regulator clearly said that the proposition that was put to him on that date would have led to his resignation. Will the Leader of the House explain the contradiction between the two statements? If he cannot, does he believe that this is a matter of sufficient importance to require the Secretary of State to return immediately to the House to explain matters?
Mr. Cook: I do not think that there is a single member of the Cabinet who has made more statements to the House or appeared more often at this Dispatch Box since we returned from the recess than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Whatever else the Opposition may complain about, they cannot complain about the opportunities to question him or to put statements to him. So far, I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend has robustly defended his record. Indeed, it is the record of the previous Government that is on trial, not this Government.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on how we can secure greater cross-community support within this country for the coalition's military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Is he aware that, on 6 November, I asked the Prime Minister which Muslim leaders in this country had expressed support for that military action, and he was unable to name a single one?
Mr. Cook: There have been statements by the Labour Muslim Council and from hon. Friends who are Members of this House and members of the Muslim faith. They have been quite robust in their statements, to which I refer the hon. Gentleman. However, I fully echo his wish that we build the broadest possible consensus—a consensus not only behind the urgent need to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, but to make it clear that this is not a conflict between the west and Islam but between both of us against terrorism. With that in mind, it is a matter of regret that the Conservative party has not signed the pledge that has been signed by other parties. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked us to build consensus. I cannot think of a better way to build consensus than for us all to demonstrate support for the same pledge.

Points of Order
1.14 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, we had questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), asked about the Patrick Carter report. He said:
"The House will know that although Patrick Carter's report has been paid for by the public, it has not yet been seen by the public: it remains a secret document."
In answer, the Minister for Sport said:
"Patrick Carter's report was put into the public domain at 5 o'clock on the Thursday that the decision was made. Everyone has been able to read it and arrive at their own judgment, and a considerable number of people have told my Department that the right decision was made."— [Official Report, 5 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 9.]
I must inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I27/4/2549ked with the Clerk of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which is currently conducting an inquiry into this very issue. The report is not available to the Committee. Moreover, it was not placed in the public domain. It would seem that the Minister for Sport has inadvertently misled the House, as it was factually incorrect to say that the report was in the public domain. I wonder whether an opportunity might be given to the Minister to come back to the House, apologise and set the record straight.
Mr. Speaker: These matters are for the Minister himself. The hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record and I am sure that the Minister will take serious note of what he has had to say.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, of which I have given you advance notice, Mr. Speaker. You have on many occasions been concerned at the way in which Ministers avoid questions. Can I draw your attention to an example that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel to be particularly outrageous? I tabled a question for oral reply by the Deputy Prime Minister on co-ordination of rural policy—something I was told by the Table Office was still very much the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. I then received a letter saying that the question had been transferred to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Sure enough, when the reply came back, it referred to the Cabinet Office co-ordinating machinery, making it quite clear that the original destination for my oral question was perfectly appropriate. That transfer avoided the opportunity for me to put a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister, which he might have found difficulty in answering, having little rural experience. Will you make representations again to Ministers to stop their over-protective civil servants in their private offices and their political advisers deliberately avoiding difficult questions?
Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, decisions about the transfer of questions are matters for Ministers, not the Chair. However, I have examined the question and the answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I sympathise with his complaint. In the circumstances he
380
describes, where the line of ministerial responsibility is not clear cut, I deprecate the transfer of a question tabled for oral answer, which has the effect of depriving the Member of the opportunity to be called to put a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Chris Grayling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In recent days, I have experienced a total refusal by the Treasury to respond to any questions relating to the administration of Railtrack, even though I have written confirmation from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that the Treasury has been involved in discussions on the matter. Furthermore, I have tabled a question not specifically about that circumstance but, in broad terms, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances he would provide guaranteed security for the debt of a company limited by guarantee. Once again, that question—although it referred in no way to transport matters—was transferred to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. As Members, do we not have a right to question the Treasury about a matter that clearly has Treasury involvement?
Mr. Speaker: As I have already stated, transfers are not generally a matter for the Chair and the best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is to be persistent.
Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the answer given to my earlier question by the Leader of the House. The Prime Minister did not give that information in answer to my written question. This is not a matter of a transfer—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not my policy to extend questions to the Leader of the House. Perhaps next week the hon. Gentleman can put the same question and see what kind of answer he gets then.

BILL PRESENTED
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REFORM AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS BILL
  Mr. Secretary Milburn, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Robin Cook, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. John Hutton and Ms Hazel Blears, presented a Bill to amend the law about the National Health Service; to establish and make provision in connection with a Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health; to make provision in relation to arrangements for joint working between NHS bodies and the Prison Service, and between NHS bodies and local authorities in Wales; to make provision in connection with the regulation of health care professions; 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 47].
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  That the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001, S.I., 2001, No. 2718. dated 25th July 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st August, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.— [Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  BUILDING REGULATIONS
  That the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001, SI., 2001, No. 3335, dated 4th October 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th October, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.— (Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to

Orders of the Day
  Export Control Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Export Control Bill
    New Clause 1

      GENERAL RESTRICTION ON PURPOSES OF CONTROL ORDERS
      '(1) The Schedule specifies the purposes for which an order imposing controls may be made.
      (2) The power to make an order imposing controls is not restricted by subsection (1) if the order provides—

      (a) for the order to expire. or

      (b) for the provision imposing the controls to cease to have effect,

      no later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the order is made.
      (3) The power to make an order which—

      (a) amends provisions of an earlier order;

      (b) revokes and re-enacts (with or without modifications) provisions of an earlier order,

      is restricted by subsection (1) only if and to the extent that the order strengthens controls that have already been imposed or imposes new controls.
      (4) In subsection (3) "provisions of an earlier order" does not include provisions made by virtue of subsection (2).
      (5) In this section "controls" means export, transfer, technical assistance or trade controls.'.— [Nigel Griffiths.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.21 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 4, leave out from "order" to end of line 6 and insert—
      '(a) has been laid before and approved by a resolution of
      each House of Parliament, and
      (b) provides—

      (i) for the order to expire, or

      (ii) for the provision imposing them to cease to have effect,'.

      Government amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 12 to 15.
      Amendment No. 30, in clause 11, page 7, line 4, leave out from "which" to "shall" in line 5 and insert—
      'does not contain any provision made by virtue of (General restriction on purposes of control orders) (2), or under section 4 or 5'.
      Government amendment No. 16.
      Amendment No. 31, in page 7, line 15, leave out from "containing" to end of line 18 and insert—
      'an order under section 14(3)'.
      Government amendments Nos. 17 to 23.
      Amendment No. 36, in schedule, page 9, line 18, after "have", insert—
      ', or contribute through cumulative impact to having,'.
      Amendment No. 32, in page 9, line 19, after "Table". insert—
      ', or that exportation of the goods might run contrary to any of the criteria of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports'.
      Amendment No. 33, in page 9, line 26, after "Table", insert—
      ', or that exportation of the goods might run contrary to any of the criteria of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports'.
      Government amendment No. 24.
      Amendment No. 38, in page 10, line 2, leave out from "of" to end of line 4 and insert—
      'goods or technology anywhere in the world in connection with the development, production or use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.'.
      Government amendment No. 25.
      Amendment No. 39, in page 10, line 11, at end insert—
      E An adverse effect on the sustainable development of the country to which the goods were exported, or the technology was transferred.'.
      Government amendment No. 26.
      Amendment No. 34, in page 10, line 15, at the end, insert—
      'Economic capacity and sustainable development
      F An adverse effect on—

      (a) the economic capacity; or

      (b) the sustainable development of the country to which the goods were exported, or the technology was transferred.'.

      Nigel Griffiths: As new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 12 to 26 are Government amendments, I intend to speak in favour of them.
      I want to give the House a clear and detailed explanation of the many and varied issues covered by the amendments, and I apologise because that is likely to take some time. I wish to give the clearest possible explanation of the Government's position, so I hope that hon. Members will keep their interventions to a minimum during my speech. The House will appreciate that I have a great deal of ground to cover and I ask the House's patience, as in most cases I am not likely to agree to give way immediately. The House will be aware that, unlike in Committee, we have only this afternoon, so I have limited time to speak and I wish to give the House the fullest possible explanation in the time available.
      For clarity, I should say at the outset that I intend to oppose amendment (a) to new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 30 to 34, 36, 38 and 39. I support new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 12 to 26. New clause 2, which will be considered in the next group of amendments, is a consequential amendment to this group of amendments.
      At first sight, this group of a new clause and amendments may appear somewhat complex. I assure hon. Members that that is not the case. They provide that the powers to introduce orders imposing trade controls or controls on technical assistance are directly subject to the purposes described in the schedule to the Bill. They are then limited in scope to controls that are similar in effect to those imposed under clauses 1 and 2, on the export of goods and the transfer of technology. This, then, allows the definitions of "controlled goods" and "controlled technology" in clause 9 to be deleted. However, the alterations achieved in new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 14 result in a large number of further consequential amendments. Let me explain why we wish to amend the Bill in this way.
      384
      In Committee there were calls from hon. Members for trade controls and technical assistance controls to be directly subject to the purposes in the schedule. It also became evident in Committee that the definitions of "controlled goods" and "controlled technology" used in clause 9 to achieve that effect could be confusing. There is also a risk that the current structure of the Bill could leave a loophole whereby brokers who arranged for their goods to transit the United Kingdom might be able to claim exemption from the controls. We want to avoid that at all costs. Hence the Government have concluded that it would simplify and clarify the Bill to ensure that trade controls and technical assistance controls are subject to the purposes contained in the schedule in the same way as the export and transfer controls.
      The amendments proposed ensure that orders imposing controls on trading goods or on the provision of technical assistance overseas can be made only for one of the purposes listed in the schedule. The first subsection of new clause 1 proposes and states:
      "The Schedule specifies the purposes for which an order imposing controls may be made."
      The new clause then explains that controls include
      "export, transfer, technical assistance or trade controls."
      That amendment does not widen the Government's powers to introduce controls on trade, or on the provision of technical assistance overseas. Amendments No. 4 and 8 make it clear that controls on trade or on technical assistance are limited, not only by the purposes in the schedule but by the fact that the controls must be connected or correspond to export or transfer controls. Therefore it will not be possible for the Government to impose trafficking or brokering controls and technical assistance controls that are radically different from the export or transfer controls or of no connection with them.
      The amendments seek to simplify the Bill, and to tighten it up to ensure that there are no potential loopholes. I know that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is of considerable importance, and it is important to get it right, so I urge hon. Members to support the amendments.
      I shall now speak to amendment (a) to new clause 1, and amendments Nos. 30 to 31, as they address similar issues. Those amendments seek to alter the existing provisions in the Bill for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 seek to replace the negative resolution procedures for orders made under clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5 with the delayed affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment (a) to new clause 1 seeks to subject orders under subsection (2) of the new clause to the draft affirmative resolution procedure.
      A very similar set of amendments was debated in Committee last month. I made the general point then that the different scrutiny provisions of clause 11 reflect the distinction between orders that can change the fundamental purposes for which export controls can be imposed, and orders that set out the details of those controls. Clearly, where the fundamental purposes of the Bill are involved, it is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate such matters under the affirmative resolution procedure, but the Government believe that the details of the controls are best dealt with by the negative procedure.
      Orders made under clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5, for which the negative procedure is provided, will frequently be of a technical nature, such as amendments to orders resulting

      385
      from changes to lists of items subject to control. Such changes are usually a result of alterations to the international export control regimes such as the missile technology control regime, upon which many of our export controls are based. They are orders of the type for which the negative resolution procedure is best suited.
      There is, rightly, parliamentary interest in the new controls to be introduced under the Bill, which is why we provided the Committee and Parliament with draft dummy orders, setting out how we proposed to use the new controls. That is why I announced last month that the Government would hold a full public consultation on draft secondary legislation before the new controls were introduced next year. That will provide an opportunity for all those with an interest to consider and comment on the new controls to be introduced under the Bill.
      We believe that amendment (a), relating to new clause 1, is intended to require that no orders made under subsection (2) of new clause 1 may be brought into force without prior approval of Parliament. We fully accept that draft affirmative resolution procedure for orders made under clause 11(4), which can modify the schedule of purposes, but we do not believe that it would be sensible for that procedure to apply to orders made under subsection (2) of new clause 1.
      The object of the new subsection (2), which is currently part of clause 3 of the Bill, as amended in Committee, is to allow the Government to respond to emergency situations by imposing controls with immediate effect that, exceptionally, would not or might not clearly fall within the purposes set out in the schedule. As I said in Committee, the reason for that is that the Government will sometimes have to introduce specific controls under that subsection to deal with unforeseen emergency situations. In such situations, the Government would be required to act without delay and it would not always be possible to achieve parliamentary approval in time. However, no one should be in any doubt that it will ultimately be left to Parliament to decide by the end of 40 sitting days whether to allow the Government to continue to exercise those controls.
      1.30 pm
      That in itself will always be a significant influence on any Government exercising powers over that short period. I also point out that any order introduced under new clause 1(2) that was approved by Parliament within the 40-day period could not remain in force for more than a year without the further express approval of both Houses of Parliament.
      To sum up, I consider that the Bill is a significant and desirable improvement on the existing legislative framework for export controls. That framework does not provide for any proper parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation, but the Bill does. As I said in Committee, it is important that we have the right tools for the right job. Accordingly, where the fundamental objectives of the Bill are involved, we have provided for the affirmative resolution procedure. We have also provided for scrutiny by the negative resolution procedure in all other cases.
      Given what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will withdraw amendment (a), and amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
      386
      I shall speak to amendments Nos. 36, 32 and 33 together, as they address similar issues. Amendments Nos. 36 and 33 would ensure that orders could be imposed to prevent an adverse effect of a type specified in any of the criteria of the European Union code of conduct on arms exports. I assure the House that the schedule of the Bill will allow us to impose controls on any goods or technology that we need to be able to control in order to meet our obligations under the EU code of conduct.
      Like other member states, we impose controls on military items. Dual-use items, of course, are subject to control under the European Community regulation. Such items are the goods and technologies whose export we need to control in order to meet our obligations under the EU code of conduct. They are the goods and technologies that the schedule allows us to impose controls on, but it would not be appropriate to refer to the code in the schedule, as the amendment would require. The purpose of the EU code, and of our consolidated criteria that incorporate it, is to set out the basis on which licence applications are assessed. That is different from the purposes for which controls may be imposed.
      I can best illustrate that by referring to the criterion in the code that refers to the risk of diversion to undesirable end-users. That risk is an extremely important factor in making any licensing decision. However, the risk of diversion is not associated with any particular category of goods or technology. So allowing diversion to be included as a factor for which orders could be imposed would theoretically allow the Government the power to control any goods of any description whatsoever.
      It is not the purpose of the Bill to enable the Government to be able to control any goods whatsoever. Using the power would also conflict with our commitments to international and EU trade arrangements.
      Amendment No. 32 would introduce into the schedule a reference to the risk that goods might have one of the consequences listed in the table contained in the schedule through cumulative effect. I believe that those of my hon. Friends who tabled the amendment had the primary intention of ensuring that the Bill allows the cumulative effect of arms exports on the sustainable development of recipient countries to be taken into account in licensing decisions.
      I shall address the issue of cumulative effect more generally. The schedule describes the purposes for which the order imposing export controls or transfer controls can be made. The function of the schedule is to govern the making of orders that specify the goods and technology, or classes of goods and technology, that are to be subject to export controls.
      Paragraph 4 of the schedule allows controls to be imposed on types of goods without reference to quantities. A particular item of equipment—a machine gun, for example—may be brought under control, and an export licence would be required for any exports of machine guns, irrespective of the number of guns that it is proposed to export.
      There is nothing in the Bill, or in the current orders, that would prevent the Secretary of State from considering the number of other goods of that type—or of other types of arms exported by the recipient—when reaching a decision on an export licence application, where that is a relevant consideration. Such considerations form a normal part of the assessment of whether the proposed end use is

      387
      reasonable, and in assessing the degree of risk, for instance, of diversion or of aggressive use against neighbours.
      Similarly, decisions on individual licences are considered under the criterion on a case-by-case basis. The cumulative effects of the purchase of arms by recipient countries may well be a relevant consideration in the assessment of a licence application under criterion 8.
      As many hon. Members will be aware, criterion 8 of the consolidated EU criteria obliges Ministers taking decisions on export licences to look carefully at the compatibility of any proposed arms export with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country. In view of that explanation, and of the explanations that I shall give later, I hope that, in due course, those of my hon. Friends who have tabled amendments Nos. 36, 32 and 33 will agree to withdraw them.
      I turn now to amendment No. 38. This would clarify the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" and ensure that it refers to
      "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."
      I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and that it could be counterproductive, as I shall explain. The amendment would restrict the purposes for which orders could be imposed to activities related to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. However, it is possible that other current, and future, weapons could cause mass destruction but would not fall into any of those categories.
      For example, radiological weapons constructed of conventional explosives combined with radioactive material are not considered to be nuclear weapons, but they could of course have devastating results. That is why the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" allows the possibility of controlling activities related to such weapons, or to any other types of such weapons that may arise in the future.
      I hope that the explanation satisfies those hon. Members who tabled amendment No. 38, and that they will agree to withdraw the amendment in due course.
      I shall speak to amendments No. 39 and 34 together, as they address similar issues. The effect of each amendment would be to allow the risk of there being an adverse effect on the sustainable development of a country to be the purpose for which the orders could be made imposing controls on goods and technology. In addition, amendment No. 39 would allow the risk of there being an adverse effect on the economic capability of a country to be a purpose for which such orders could be made.
      We believe that the amendments are unnecessary, because the concerns that appear to lie behind them are already fully addressed elsewhere in the Bill. Sustainable development concerns are already taken fully into account under the consolidated EU criteria and the national arms export licensing criteria, which we announced to Parliament on 26 October 2000. The criteria were framed by EU member states precisely to cover the range of issues that ought to be addressed in licensing decisions, and they included the issue of sustainable development.
      Criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria obliges member states taking decision on export licences to look carefully at the compatibility of any proposed arms export with the technical and economic capability of the recipient country. It further states that any Government must take
      388
      into account whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country.
      All the consolidated criteria will remain the basis for export licensing decisions under the legislation. To remove any doubt about that, we have made explicit provision in clause 7 for all the consolidated criteria—including criterion 8 on sustainable development—to continue to be taken fully into account when decisions are made about export licences.
      Moreover, as I explained in connection with amendments Nos. 36 and 32, the schedule will allow us to impose controls on any goods or technology that we need to be able to control in order to meet all our obligations under the EU code of conduct. Adding the provisions of criterion 8 to the schedule is not necessary because we are able, under the Bill as it stands, fully to take into account all the criteria, including the criterion on sustainable development. Clause 7 underlines, for the first time in legislation, the status of the consolidated criteria.
      In conclusion, for the reasons that I have outlined, I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.
      Mr. Robert Key: I suspect that we are in for a long afternoon on a highly technical group of amendments. We shall have an extremely important series of debates this afternoon. All the hon. Members who are present have track records and experience in such matters, so this series of debates will be very well informed.
      The Opposition have broadly welcomed the Bill, as have British industry, non-governmental organisations and many individuals, but all of us have certain reservations, hence the large number of amendments. Of course, because we broadly agree, detailed scrutiny is even more important, and that will be the House's function this afternoon, following on from very interesting debates in Committee. It was unfortunate, of course, that half of Standing Committee B's sittings took place in July and the other half in October, because the intervening period allowed a number of changes, one of which was for myself to be parachuted into my current position, which was a great pleasure. I suspect that various changes occurred on both sides of the Committee.
      Grateful though I am to the Minister for his courtesy and to his officials for theirs, it was something of a surprise to discover on Tuesday that the Government had rewritten a very large proportion of the Bill. The Minister has very courteously explained why they did so, and he wrote to hon. Members on 6 November, sending official Government notes on the amendments that he was proposing. However, in all my 18 and a half years as a Member, it was the first occasion on which I can recall such a sweeping rewrite to primary legislation so close to Report and Third Reading—a mere two working days.
      That lack of time made things very difficult for a lot of people. For instance, it made it very difficult for the Clerks to get the business in order and for the Opposition parties to adjust to the proposed amendments, because it was suggested that certain clauses should be deleted, but many of us wanted to propose amendments to those clauses. We therefore had to work out where those bits of the Bill would be by the time Thursday arrived. It was

      389
      very difficult for the public and the non-governmental organisations, charities and pressure groups to follow all the changes.
      We all now recognise what the Government have done, and I repeat that I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy and his explanation of the changes. I am also grateful to his excellent officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, who have been sitting at the end of telephone lines waiting to offer help. I certainly took the Minister's advice and used that facility, and I am very grateful to him because it certainly helped us to make a more coherent response to the changes that the Government had announced. It would he helpful, however, if the Minister could explain why they decided to propose this very big change at the last minute.
      I understand the Minister's argument—I follow his logic, and I accept it—but I am bound to ask why he and his officials did not think of the change some months earlier; it would have been helpful if they had. Flattered though we all are that the Minister suggested that the change had something to do with what occurred in Committee, it really would be a first if we had such a large proportion of a Bill rewritten on those grounds. In addition to his courtesy in explaining why he has proposed the change, it would be much appreciated if he could have another go at saying why it had to be left quite so late.
      1.45 pm
      On new clause 1 and the related amendments, much of the debate in Committee focused on the orders that would be laid before the House and whether that should be done under the affirmative or negative procedure. That is a touchstone argument, and it has arisen time and again. Indeed, paragraph 4 of the DTI's explanatory notes to the Bill, which we all received, state:
      "The Scott Inquiry … identified a number of limitations in the 1939 Act, including the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation made under the Act and the absence of any indication of the purposes for which export controls may be imposed."
      I acknowledge that the Government have gone a long way in seeking to meet those criticisms, and we are very glad that they have, but they have not gone nearly far enough. That is why I decided that we must pursue the issue a little further.
      I shall briefly explain what the amendments that I have tabled would do. The Minister has given us a summary, but under the proposed change, temporary orders would require prior affirmation by the House before they could take effect. The Bill, as drafted, makes provision for Parliament to approve temporary orders, but only within 40 days of their taking effect. The Secretary of State could conceivably issue a temporary order to have effect for less than 40 days, which would escape parliamentary scrutiny, so the importance of such secondary legislation would not be recognised.
      Of course, the Quadripartite Committee was a tremendous innovation in itself—four Select Committees worked together on this extremely important Bill. We all welcomed that remarkable achievement, as we did its report; it helped us to understand one another. The work of Select Committees is often compartmentalised and
      390
      there is inevitably a lot of overlap, and I am glad to see Government Members nodding. I hope that that innovative procedure will be used again.
      The Quadripartite Committee says in its report:
      "The Bill is largely an enabling Bill. The meat of the proposals being made will be in the secondary legislation to be made under the Bill."
      Quite so. In Committee, we therefore proposed a number of changes in the guidance on parliamentary approval, but the Government rejected them.
      There is a fundamental point at stake, and we must insist that Parliament should retain more control than it will be allowed under the Bill. Furthermore, the concern was expressed in the other place by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the Secretary of State will be given unusual discretion to impose temporary orders under new clause 1(2). We all understand what the Minister said about emergencies, and we do not doubt that, but I have never yet encountered a situation in which the Government have found themselves unable to make the necessary emergency moves, if necessary by introducing primary legislation.

      On one occasion during my time as a Member, an emergency Bill passed all its stages in the House in three minutes, so I do not accept that the Government cannot move quickly if they really need to do so. We propose that new clause 1(2) should be amended so that any temporary order must first be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament, in the same way that Parliament must approve any changes proposed by the Secretary of State to the schedule of purposes.
      As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said in Committee, that is not an ideological or policy issue; it is about parliamentary prerogatives and control over the Executive. The House is now going through a very interesting phase, to say the least—it is losing authority to the Executive, and I should like to resist any further losses.
      The other amendments follow the first. As was pointed out on Second Reading on 9 July, the Government would be able, under the negative resolution procedure, to decide whether Parliament would be able to debate export control orders. We want to amend the Bill so that any orders—except temporary orders—made under clauses 1, 2, 4 or 5 are subject to the delayed affirmative resolution procedure. That requires a complementary amendment.
      Governments often give a standard response to any suggestion. They say that the time of Parliament would be wasted and that the business of the House and the Government would be slowed down by the consideration of minor procedural or technical changes. That is not a substantial argument and, when changes are significant, Parliament must be given the opportunity to consider them. We must also consider what is or is not significant.
      There was a good debate in Committee in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) moved excellent amendments on orders. He said:
      "It is clearly in the interests of good government that we should have the most thorough parliamentary scrutiny. That is not just in the interests of Back Benchers of whatever party, but is in the interests of the Executive, provided that the Opposition do not cause inordinate delay or unreasonable instruction."
      When he wound up the debate, he said:
      "Given the strong feeling on both sides of the Committee that we want the fullest possible scrutiny, I ask the Department to give the fullest possible consideration on Report to whether aspects of

      391
      secondary legislation could be given fuller parliamentary scrutiny. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B 18 October 2001; c. 137–140.]
      That was significant moment. On the basis that a Minister would, on Report, take the opportunity to repone the issue, a Labour Member said that he would withdraw his amendment. However, the Government have not done what he suggested. The Minister has merely told us that he will reject our amendments. We must take that fact seriously.
      It was an extraordinary moment, because I do not recall a similar instance in any Standing Committee on which I have served. A Labour Member sought to withdraw an amendment, but I said that we should not and insisted on a Division. Everyone who had spoken in favour of the amendment, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, had to vote against it. That was no doubt an interesting experience for all the Labour Members concerned.
      We are considering amendments that are so complex and diverse that I am sure that we shall have a long debate on this group. However, I wish to comment on the definition of sustainable development.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his next point, will he consider the point about urgency? I have considerable sympathy for what he says about parliamentary scrutiny. It is fundamental and, if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to speak to one of the new clauses that touches on the subject. However, the need for the Government to be able to act with extreme urgency is a real issue. I can think of circumstances in the past when the Government had to act against goods that had not previously been subject to controls but, if they had been exported, could have affected the lives and well-being of British forces. Does he accept that, under those circumstances, the Government must act and must be seen to act immediately? It would be difficult to support any provision that would prevent them from being able to do that. Will he explain why my view of his amendment is misplaced?
      Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting and instructive intervention. The House would be very interested in hearing from him how he resolved such problems when he was a Foreign Office Minister. Clearly Governments face such problems, so perhaps he could tell us how they responded when he was a Minister. My contention is that they can always find a way of doing something. In emergencies, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence might be able to act under the royal prerogative.
      Emergency legislation is available to the Government and they can use it without the need to return to the House. However, it would help the debate if the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience on this matter, explained what happened in, say, the case of Sierra Leone—where there might have been such examples—or Rwanda. I look forward to hearing from him later.
      I do not want to hog the Floor, because many Members wish to speak on this complex subject. I have explained why I think that we should press our amendment. The Government have failed to come forward with any further
      392
      suggestions despite the invitation of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North to do so. I shall listen with great interest to the remainder of the debate,
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Technically the debate on this group of amendments is taking place on the question of whether new clause 1 be read a Second time. I will call the hon. Gentleman to move amendment (a) formally at the appropriate time.
      Tony Worthington: I am pleased to take part in this debate on an important Bill. I enthusiastically support it except in one respect. I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34. Amendments No. 32 and 33 deal with the same theme, but amendment No. 34 is slightly different in its purpose.
      Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 would bring our legislation automatically into line with the European directive on sustainable development. The gap between the EU directive and the Bill derives from the fact that the Bill does not cover sustainable development whereas the EU code of guidance does. My amendments would ensure that, if the code of guidance is changed, it would automatically be incorporated into British law. If, with our consent, the EU thought that other grounds existed to make it necessary to forbid the sale of arms or other services, we would not need to introduce primary legislation in the House.
      Amendment No. 34 would simply ensure that sustainable development is covered by the Bill. The Minister owes us an explanation—[Interruption.] If the Minister will listen, I shall repeat my view that he owes us the explanation that was not forthcoming either from the Secretary of State on Second Reading or from other Ministers in Committee. We need to know why sustainable development as a ground for banning an export was dropped from the Bill.
      In an earlier phase of Government thinking, both the EU code of guidance and the Bill agreed that sustainable development should be a consideration. It was accepted that we should not give approval to activities that would increase poverty, and that provision was in the Bill. However, without explanation the Government removed it from the Bill, which means that the export of arms and inappropriate technology cannot be banned on the basis of sustainable development. That is odd.
      2 pm
      My central point relates to what the Minister said in Committee. In trying to allay suspicions about why sustainable development was not included in the Bill, he said:
      "We have always made it clear that our national criteria and the EU code of conduct on arms exports, which we played a key role in drafting…would remain the basis for export licensing decisions."
      I do not understand how that can be so when it is only that which is explicitly banned in the schedule which can be the grounds for stopping exports.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also difficult to understand the Minister's reasoning when the EU code of conduct for arms export is not legally binding, so no Government will be bound by it anyway?
      Tony Worthington: Yes, that is absolutely the case. The code of conduct is simply guidance. The Minister

      393
      said in Committee that if the Government were to ignore sustainable development when making a decision, that could be subject to judicial review, but I doubt whether that is so.
      The non-governmental organisations that are interested in this subject and form the United Kingdom working group on arms—Amnesty International, the British American Security Information Council, which is known as BASIC, International Alert, Oxfam and Saferworld—took legal advice on the Minister's comments. It asked whether he was right and the advice the group received from Matrix chambers was that he was wrong. Indeed, judicial review could be called for by a firm if an export is refused on the grounds of sustainable development because only those criteria that are set out in the schedule are relevant. Given that legal advice, which I can make available to him for no fee, I hope that he will reconsider his case.
      The Minister also said in Committee:
      "They are ignoring the fact that we signed up to the EU code of conduct. We shall not withdraw from it, and a future Government will have to be bound by clause 8(4)."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 July 2001; c. 47–48.]
      That is not true. The code of conduct offers advice; it has no binding power. Will he also reconsider that, and bear in mind that it goes against Scott's sensible recommendation that the law should contain all such advice. He did not think that we should have to look to advice from elsewhere. He was clear about that.
      I have one example in particular on which I should like the Minister to comment. The Department of Trade and Industry is considering an application by a British firm to supply Tanzania with $40 million of air traffic control radar equipment. As that has a substantial military component, it has to receive approval from the Department. The World Bank has condemned the proposal for being needlessly expensive and it says that what Tanzania needs could be obtained for $10 million. The proposal has also been turned down by the International Monetary Fund.
      The UK has formed a relationship with Tanzania, one of the world's poorest countries, to help it to wipe out its huge debt. However, at the same time there is a risk that the Government will increase that debt by $40 million. If the criterion of sustainable development is not included in the Bill, that application could be approved, but if it is altered by my amendments, it could not be approved.
      The inherent conflict must be causing problems in the Government. The Department for International Development is surely against the proposal because if the project goes ahead poverty would probably increase in Tanzania, so its support is inconceivable. It is also unlikely that the Treasury is in favour of the proposal. The idea of going to Dar es Salaam to negotiate debt reduction and then agreeing to something that adds $40 million to that debt does not sound like prudence, does it? So who does support the proposal, which has been around for a long time? It can only be the DTI.
      I am suspicious because the sustainable development criterion has been removed from the Bill and without it we cannot be sure that poverty will be taken into account. I hope that the Minister can explain that omission and assure me that if he cannot alter the Bill today, he will do so in another place.
      Dr. Tonge: Liberal Democrat Members broadly welcome the Government and Conservative new clauses and amendments in this group. We are also delighted that many of the issues that they address were raised by Liberal Democrat Members in our amendments in Committee. As the Minister rejected our amendments as unnecessary at the time, it is good to see them returning as Government amendments.
      I want to speak to the amendments tabled by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). Amendment No. 36 deals with the need for the Bill to provide for thorough consideration of the cumulative impact of arms exports.
      The Government's policy is that exports are assessed case by case. Although that is appropriate in most instances, there are situations in which it is vital that the Government assess the cumulative impact of arms exports on a country or region. The need for such an assessment is especially acute when considering the implications of exports for sustainable development, which I shall speak about at some length, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) did.
      No licence has ever been refused under the sustainable development criterion, largely because it is almost impossible to prove that any single licence will damage development. However, although it may be true that one licence taken in isolation may be of little concern, the combined effect of a number of licences could well have an adverse effect on development.
      Perhaps it is necessary to spell this out again to the Minister, as we did in Committee. Developing countries often get into debt, and they are often encouraged to do so by the United Kingdom, which grants them export credit guarantees to buy arms. They spend far too much on the arms sector while spending far too little on health and education, which they neglect. As I said in Committee, education is crucial to the economic and overall development of any country. Development issues have been neglected because of spending on arms. Although one export may not highlight that fact, a series of exports may do so.
      A series of exports may be a factor also when evaluating the impact of arms exports on a particular region. Perhaps one export of arms will not have an immediate impact on the country to which it is made, but it may affect overall regional stability. It is therefore crucial that the Bill provides for the consideration of the cumulative effect.
      Perhaps the Minister will refer us to other provisions in the Bill, or to other schedules, guidance or other criteria, all of which can be so confusing. If the issue is addressed in all those places, why can we not simply state in the Bill how to address it? I do not know what Ministers are running away from. A provision requiring an examination of the cumulative impact of arms sales would make it so much simpler to interpret the Bill's intent.
      On amendment No. 38, I understand the Minister's point on the desirability of substituting the words "mass destruction" for
      "development, production or use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."
      However, as recent events have shown, a weapon of mass destruction could encompass almost anything. I therefore believe that we have to be careful when addressing

      395
      that issue. Perhaps we should be legislating for the possibilities that we can understand and not for any old thing that may take the fancy of future terrorists. I ask the Minister to reflect on that issue.
      Amendment No. 39 takes us back to sustainable development—however defined—which is my favourite subject, and the favourite subject of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. Yesterday, we had a very interesting debate in the House on the definition of sustainable development and on whether we should accept the Brundtland definition or the Government's own definition in the International Development Bill. Nevertheless, whichever definition we choose, the Bill surely must address the issue.
      In the Export Control Bill, sustainable development is the only one of the eight consolidated criteria that the Government will consider before granting an export licence that is not included in the schedule of purposes for export control. Instead, the sustainable development criterion is referred to indirectly in the clause on guidance. In Committee, however, the Minister said:
      "The Bill confirms and underlines the status of consolidated criteria, all aspects of which are important."
      He also said that the Bill had been so structured as
      "a matter of clarity and convenience".
      We believe that that sends the very clear political message that the Government do not regard protecting sustainable development as of equal importance to the other purposes. The Minister said that the Bill says it all, but in his statements he has clearly excluded sustainable development as a purpose of equal importance.
      The omission of sustainable development was raised in Committee. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, legal advice has been taken from Matrix chambers by a group of non-governmental organisations. I prefer to read out the relevant sections of the advice that we have received. It is important that we have that advice on the record as it has been given, because I could not put it in the correct legal terms if I tried to paraphrase it.
      2.15 pm
      The advice identifies three reasons why it is important to include sustainable development in the schedule of purposes. It states that the purposes can be changed only under the affirmative resolution procedure, so a Government could change them only with prior parliamentary approval, whereas the guidance can be changed without reference to Parliament other than it being informed at some unspecified time after the event. The DTI has stated that sustainable development will be protected as it is one of the criteria in the EU code of conduct on arms exports, and in Committee the Minister said:
      "Even if a future Government tried to withdraw guidance issues under clause 8"—
      which, post-Committee, has become clause 7—
      "the EU criteria would continue to apply".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B 17 July 2001; c. 47.]
      However, Matrix chambers advises that, on the contrary,
      "it would be hard to maintain this argument in the face of an express decision to remove the Code from the guidance"
      especially as
      "even at the EU level the Code does not have legal force."
      That is most elegantly put.
      Secondly, as an export order or transfer order can be made only for a purpose as elaborated in the schedule, excluding sustainable development from the schedule means that an order could not be made for the purpose of sustainable development. Our advice states:
      "However much other matters have to be taken into account, they cannot justify making an order for a purpose which is not listed in the Schedule."
      That means that it would not be possible to introduce specific secondary legislation under the Bill to control more tightly exports that could hamper sustainable development, whereas, for example, the Government could introduce orders laying out a more detailed definition of what constitutes internal repression, or any of the other purposes in the schedule. Thirdly, the current arrangement of including sustainable development only under guidance does not satisfy the recommendation of the Scott report that any guidelines or guidance issued by the Government must operate inside the law, not alongside it.
      In conclusion, the legal advice suggests that removing sustainable development from the schedule places it in a weaker position than other criteria under law. The omission denies a future Secretary of State the power to introduce controls to protect sustainable development, even if he or she wants to do so. It also means that he or she could remove sustainable development altogether as a consideration, with minimal parliamentary oversight. I thank the House for allowing me to read that advice, as it is important that it is on the record.
      We should not have to keep on spelling out the importance of sustainable development. Yesterday, the House debated the International Development Bill: sustainable development, whatever definition is used, is central to that Bill and dear to the hearts of the Secretary of State for International Development and her junior Minister. That Bill was given its Second Reading without encountering any dissent from hon. Members, so it is abundantly clear that sustainable development is close to the hearts of all parties.
      Sustainable development is on the face of the International Development Bill. If the Government believe in Departments working together, and if they believe in the joined-up government about which we hear so much, those words must appear on the face of the Export Control Bill, to ensure that no future Secretary of State can interpret the guidance in a different way and bypass crucial sustainable development.
      Vera Baird: I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). I emphasise in particular my support for amendment No. 34 on sustainable development. I do not propose to repeat the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of that amendment; instead, I will make two minor further points.
      It is my view—I invite the Minister to consider it—that the existence of the words "sustainable development" in the consolidated criteria, together with the fact that sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated criteria that is left out of the statutory schedule, make it next to impossible to imply into the schedule a power to legislate to protect sustainable development. It is all too clear that it

      397
      has been deliberately, obviously and openly omitted. I suggest that seeking to imply it back in by an indirect mechanism will not work.
      I ask the Minister to note that that is not only the view of Matrix chambers, well known and important as it is. It is also the view of the researcher who produced the paper in connection with the schedule, which is in the Library. It states that if there is not a reference to sustainable development in, then it is wholly out and cannot be implied in. The researcher says that the schedule sets out the purposes of export control in legislation, and it limits controls to those purposes and no others.
      There is also the argument—it is exactly the argument advanced by the Minister—that is now propounded in support of amendment No. 34. My hon. Friend put it forward against amendment No. 38. He talked about that amendment setting out a list of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and that being a dangerous course because if such a list is put into the Bill, anything that is left out cannot be covered. That argument applies exactly to leaving out sustainable development from the list in schedule 4.
      I do not like the term "hoist by one's own petard", and it is not appropriate in this instance, but will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider the matter and provide an explanation? If he will not seriously reconsider the position, why is the obvious need for the term "sustainable development" to appear in legislation not to be recognised? It is clearly the Government's intention to have regard to it. They have put themselves in an inextricably complex position. The simple way out is to add the phrase to the schedule.
      Dr. Vincent Cable: Many of the key points have already been made by Members on both sides of the House, so I will not delay the House. I shall merely make a few additional points.
      I speak in support of the Conservative amendments, which are important and echo a theme that ran throughout our discussions in Committee. Whatever our views about the arms trade and necessity for controls—there are different views about those matters—parliamentary scrutiny is essential. Later, we shall discuss the core issue of prior scrutiny. In the absence of prior scrutiny, the point has been made by the Members representing all three parties that were represented in Committee that there would be considerable merit in escalating the level of parliamentary scrutiny generally. It was thought that the negative procedure is too weak, and where possible it should be replaced with delayed action; and where there is delayed action, it should be replaced with affirmative action. That is the substance of the Conservative amendment, which is a useful one, and I hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will pursue it.
      I move on to cumulative effects, which are taken up by amendment No. 36. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made the point well. The current crisis underlines the necessity for having such criteria built into legislation. We are on the brink of at least one new arms race between India and Pakistan. Under current proposals, every export application would be considered individually. However, the problem when there is an arms race is knowing precisely when the cumulative effect is getting out of control.
      398
      An individual contract taken in isolation may be beneficial or neutral in its impact, but the exporting country might want to say that the point was being reached where the arming of Pakistan or India, or both, was getting out of control. The cumulative effect is what we must consider.
      Similarly, the economic environment is changing rapidly. If there is a major economic shock leading to falling commodity prices, the effects of deteriorating international economic conditions will quickly undermine the conditions under which, for example, the heavily indebted poor countries have had debt relief. The position of many western hemisphere countries, including those in Latin America, is precarious. Only yesterday, I saw figures showing that the debt service to export ratio of many of those countries is close to what it was before the defaults of the 1980s. Adverse international economic conditions could well precipitate a crisis in both groups of countries. If that is the case, we need to consider not just individual export contracts in isolation, but the overall effect of large volumes of arms exports going through the process and destabilising countries' economies. The cumulative impact therefore needs to be built into the language of the Bill.
      We have had a detailed exposition of the legal advice on sustainable development that is now available, but was not available in Committee. "Sustainable development" has become a buzz phrase. I was involved in writing the Brundtland report, so I have a vested interest in its interpretation of sustainable development. The key point is not whether or not we accept that definition, but that sustainable development is becoming institutionalised. The International Development Bill builds sustainable development into our legislation. We have passed the point at which it is simply an issue to be discussed by people involved in development; it is now becoming part of public law, and should be recognised as such.
      The core point about sustainable development is that if, in future, Ministers wish to introduce export controls on the grounds of sustainable development, they will not be able to do so under current legislation; there are no powers for such action. If, on the other hand, they were succeeded by other Ministers who had little interest in the subject or, indeed, held it in contempt, those Ministers could simply dismiss any sustainable development criteria with perfunctory parliamentary scrutiny. Sustainable development should therefore be built into the Bill. It is inexcusable that the Government should have difficulty with that phrase; indeed, it is inexplicable. I suspect that someone in the Department decided that they did not want woolly-minded environmentalists getting in the way of hard business decisions on arms exports, and decided to strike sustainable development from the Bill. Having done so, they have landed the Minister not only with political, but legal, problems. I hope that he will think about that again.
      Tony Worthington: Is not the situation even worse than that? Sustainable development was included in the draft Bill, but the Government decided that it should not become a ground on which exports were banned. In fact, the European Union code of guidance on sustainable development is utterly worthless because it cannot be

      399
      taken into account at all as the result of the Government changing their mind between the draft Bill and the present Bill.
      Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman makes the point eloquently and better than I did. I sincerely hope that the Minister will listen to his own Back Benchers. He may feel that we are creating difficulties for the sake of doing so; I assure him that we are not. I am sure that he will hear strong, sincere opinions from them, and I hope that he will take account of them.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: l always find the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) convincing; perhaps he should not have been quite so modest. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). Indeed, I was persuaded to put my name to amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34, which he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) tabled. Echoing the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), it is important that the matter is aired.
      I raise that with some trepidation because, whenever I am puzzled or in intellectual difficulty, almost invariably I go to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), the Minister for advice. Almost without exception, he removes my doubts. I am sure that that reputation will be consolidated today.
      It is in that questioning mode that I express to my hon. Friend the great concern that exists about the sustainable development issue in the context of a Bill that is otherwise extremely welcome. We are seeking to help my hon. Friend remove what seems, in the absence of any other explanation, to be a flaw.
      2.30 pm
      Sustainable development is extremely important. The spirit of the Scott report suggested that Scott was far from happy, because in his view the purpose of export controls was not set out in legislation. That is what the amendments seek to achieve. I am a little surprised that that needs to be done from the Back Benches. From the draft Bill that was considered previously, our understanding was that sustainable development would be part of the final Bill to be put before the House. I am not entirely sure why it was taken out of the eight criteria considered by the Government.
      Admirably, all the other export criteria in the draft Bill, such as the need not to export weapons that could be used for internal repression or human rights abuses, have been included in the final Bill. That is both right and welcome, but it raises the question why there is at present a gap between those on the Front Bench and many hon. Members on both sides in respect of sustainable development.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie explained clearly that if we accept the Bill as it stands, we are being asked to rely not on legislation—not on the schedules—but on guidance. We have seen in the past where guidance has taken us, not least during the Scott inquiry. We want to move forward more positively than that.
      Under the Bill, if there were a change in policy, Parliament would not have a say. That becomes particularly worrying when we consider that we may not
      400
      always—optimistic though I am about the future—have Ministers of whatever political party who are of the calibre of my hon. Friend. If those Ministers change their minds, where does that leave us in terms of legislation? Not, I suspect, where we want to be. As has been pointed out, the EU code is entirely advisory. We want to make matters clearer and the provision mandatory.
      Reference has been made to the excellent debate in the House yesterday on the Second Reading of the International Development Bill. Not only is sustainable development at the heart of that admirable Bill, but it was mentioned time after time in speeches in that debate. Most importantly, sustainable development appears in the Bill. It is not for me to speak for the Department for International Development, which we all agree is an excellent Department, but there seems to be a hiatus between the thinking of the Department of Trade and Industry as reflected in the Bill, what we heard in the debate yesterday, and what appears in the International Development Bill. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, I am seeking to close that gap.
      The Government have been highly persuasive in assuring the House of their commitment to sustainable development, but it seems contradictory that sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated national and European Union export criteria that is not in the Bill.
      I read carefully what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say in Committee, through which he piloted the Bill with great confidence. He said:
      "We have always made it clear that our national criteria and the EU code of conduct on arms exports, which we played a key role in drafting, accepted in full and consolidated last autumn, would remain the basis for export licensing decisions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 July 2001; c. 47.]
      That is excellent, but we would still like to see it in the Bill. In that same column, my hon. Friend gave some legal arguments. As we have heard today, however, those appear to have been contradicted by Matrix chambers. Many of us would, perhaps, give more weight to Matrix chambers than to, say, Matrix Churchill. In any event, that legal definition that I put to my hon. Friend must be clarified today, because the absence of such a definition would detract quite unnecessarily from what is otherwise an extremely comprehensive and positive Bill.
      Mr. Mark Francois: I apologise to the Minister for coming into the Chamber mid-way through his speech. I can only say in my defence that I have come hotfoot from having some dental work done. I earnestly hope that the novocaine has now worn off and that I shall not slur my words. I am conscious that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall adopt that most worrying of parliamentary phrases: "I intend to keep my remarks quite brief." I shall make only three points.
      First, it is legitimate to register concern about the considerable degree of rewriting of the Bill that has taken place in a comparatively short space of time. As a broad rule of thumb, it does not inspire confidence when a Department suddenly has to turn round and rewrite so much of its Bill so late in the day. That gives a number of us pause for thought, and it is worth placing it on the record to reinforce the point that was made earlier on this side of the Chamber.

      401
      Secondly, I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) about the further trend towards the erosion of the powers of parliamentary scrutiny and influence, be that through the ever-increasing stream of European directives and regulations with which Parliament has to deal, or through the growing tendency of Ministers to ask for powers which negate the requirement for future areas of policy in their domain to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Our amendments simply seek to retain a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny over important measures, and they are genuinely worthy of consideration on that basis.
      Thirdly, I want to make a brief point about the industry that the regulation, as amended, would affect. The defence industry, which employs more than one third of a million people in this country, is—on one level at least—an important guarantor of our security. On a day when so many hon. Members are, quite rightly, wearing poppies, it is worth remembering that, had there not been a defence industry in 1940, this debate would not be taking place at all. I urge fellow hon. Members to keep that at the back, if not at the forefront, of their minds as we continue our deliberations this afternoon.
      Mr. Bob Blizzard: I want to speak briefly about the amendments relating to sustainable development.
      The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that Members were present who were very experienced and knowledgeable in regard to these matters, and had taken an interest in them for some time. I have to say that I am not one of those Members; I am new to the Bill, and relatively new to this subject. It strikes me, however, that it is not necessary to think too long before reaching the obvious conclusion that it cannot be right to sell arms to countries that have no means of affording them other than depriving their own people of budgets that sustain the basics of life, such as health and education.
      I wanted to speak because some of my constituents have expressed their concern to me. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will help me to explain to them why sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated national and European Union export criteria not to be included in the Bill. He has said that the question is unnecessary, having been fully addressed elsewhere in the Bill; but if that is the case, why not underline it by including sustainable development in the schedule of purposes? That would remove any doubt, it would wipe away any concerns, and I think that it would answer questions raised by other Members about the difference between the draft Bill and this one. I feel that, of necessity, the concept of sustainable development must embrace that of the cumulative impact. The latter is surely implicit in the former.
      Perhaps my hon. Friends can also help me to explain to my constituents how we can rely on the EU code of conduct when it has no legal force. That, in fact, is one of our reasons for proceeding with the Bill. The Government have done an awful lot by helping to drive the code through when none existed, but we are going further today, and I think we need to go further than the code of conduct.
      402
      I shall ask a final question. If an export or transfer order can be made only for the purposes elaborated explicitly in the schedule, why are we excluding sustainable development from it? Does it not follow that we shall be unable to make such an order?
      I should be very grateful if my hon. Friend could help me explain those points to my constituents.
      Angus Robertson: I shall briefly reiterate the position of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales.
      We consider this to be an important Bill that tightens up an important area of legislation, and in general we support it, especially because it takes on and responds to so many points made in the Scott inquiry. We also consider it to be a significant step forward because it tries to prevent the transfer of arms by United Kingdom companies and citizens to conflict or human rights crisis zones. We welcome the closing of loopholes, as described by the Minister, and the enhanced scrutiny procedures.
      I hope that the Minister will take what I say in the spirit in which it is meant—one of general support. I think that my comments are in line with the overwhelming view of the majority of those who have spoken so far. We in the SNP and Plaid Cymru agree that a number of factors have been identified which, if not addressed, could undermine the Bill's effectiveness. We share the concern felt by many in the House and elsewhere that the draft Bill's reference to the need to consider the consequences of arms exports on sustainable development has been dropped from the final legislation. That point has been made repeatedly this afternoon. That is why the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and I have joined the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in tabling amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 39.
      2.45 pm
      Apart from sustainable development, all other export criteria, such as the need not to export weapons that could be used for internal repression or human rights abuses, have been included in the Bill, and rightly so. The Government have justified the omission on the ground that a new provision that gives the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance for consideration during the licensing process covers development issues. However—this point has been made, but it is crucial—although Parliament would have to be fully consulted when changes to the schedule of purposes were made, no such requirement exists for changes to the guidance. It is conceivable that, in the lifetime of the legislation, reference to the need to consider the impact of arms exports on sustainable development could be removed by the Government at any time, without any consideration by Parliament.
      Sustainable development as a concept is already becoming recognised in United Kingdom legislation. The International Development Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons yesterday. Many hon. Members in the Chamber today who were present yesterday will know that that Bill explicitly refers to and defines sustainable development. I agree with the point made in yesterday's proceedings by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that the Brundtland definition

      403
      of sustainable development would have been preferable. None the less a sustainable measure is included in that Bill.
      During the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government repeatedly stressed the importance of the issue. It seems contradictory that sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated criteria not in the Bill. I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) with regard to Tanzania. The schedule of purposes should contain explicit reference to the need to ensure that arms transfers do not have any adverse effect on the economy or sustainable development of a country.
      Government policy is based on assessing licence applications on a case-by-case basis. Although that is appropriate in most circumstances, there are concerns—we have heard many of them this afternoon—that that approach may be too narrow when considering the implications of arms transfers on sustainable development. One contract may not be significant on its own, but if part of a pattern of large-scale procurement its may contribute to a cumulative undermining of the development potential of the recipient state. That should be taken into account in the licensing process.
      In the Bill as currently drafted, sustainable development is the only one of the eight consolidated criteria, which the Government consider before granting an export licence, not to be included in the schedule. It is instead referred to indirectly in the clause. That is despite the fact that, according to the Minister:
      "The Bill confirms and underlines the status of consolidated criteria, all aspects of which are important."
      Earlier, he stated that the Bill had been so structured as
      "a matter of clarity and convenience." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 July 2001; c. 47.]
      Indeed, it sends a clear political message that the Government do not regard protecting sustainable development as of equal importance to the other purposes, such as preventing internal repression.
      The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made many valuable points about the issue of scrutiny. I suggest to him and to any other hon. Members who are interested in the matter that they have a second look at the scrutiny regime in Sweden, which is of particular interest. The Swedes, who brought in legislation not that long ago, have an interesting principle on which to base scrutiny procedure:
      "The overriding principle dictating licensing policy is that licences may only be granted if there are security or defence policy reasons for doing so and it does not conflict with Sweden's foreign policy."
      Interestingly, it also includes, implicitly, that export licences should not be granted if the recipient state
      "is involved in an armed conflict with another state
      is involved in an international conflict that may lead to armed conflict
      is subject to internal armed disturbances
      has perpetrated extensive and serious violations of human rights."
      That is particularly relevant when we consider the defence systems and equipment international exhibition that was held in this country on 10 September this year. A number of repressive regimes and countries fighting on opposing sides in Africa were invited to that event. There were representatives from countries currently involved in
      404
      the conflict in the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo, including representatives from Angola and Uganda. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain whether the updated legislation would allow exports to such countries to continue. I, and many other hon. Members, would be concerned if arms from the United Kingdom could be used in such conflicts.
      Amendment No. 36 goes back to the case-by-case assessment outlined earlier. I welcome the fact that the Minister signalled in his opening remarks that that would be taken into consideration. In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I hope to get some clarification on why that amendment is not acceptable.
      Amendment No. 38 deals with the question of different weapons technologies. I am rather confused and would welcome an explanation from the Minister.
      Nigel Griffiths: I can perhaps help end some of the confusion. Does the hon. Gentleman know that he is wrong to say that sustainable development is the only criterion not included in the schedule?
      Angus Robertson: I bow to the Minister's wisdom, but that does not detract from the case for including it in the legislation. I am happy to continue debating that if the Minister thinks that it is important.
      The Minister argued that amendment No. 38 should not be incorporated because it highlights existing and not future or emerging technologies. That is rather confusing because such a proposition would affect much if not all legislation. I do not claim to have a crystal ball that would enable us to produce legislation to anticipate all possible future technological and weapons systems development, but surely we should deal with existing threats and he open to updating legislation as necessary.
      I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that have been made by hon. Members from all the parties that have participated in the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister deal with many of our concerns.
      Mr. Lloyd: Some hon. Members have mentioned sustainable development, and I want to put a simple question to the Minister to which I hope that he will respond later.
      The House is in favour of sustainable development being caught within the concept of this legislation. Hon. Members have pointed out that the EU code—I have some responsibility for the promulgation of that code—is not legally binding and was never accepted as being so at European level.
      Is my hon. Friend the Minister convinced that if sustainable development were used as a criterion for refusal of a licence, it would stand up against judicial review instigated by an exporter facing such refusal? That is a fundamental consideration. Ministers are entitled to protection in using a criterion for the refusal of licences and to know that they can do so without others seeking recourse to the law. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am not yet convinced that it would not be better for the provision to be both extant and in the Bill, so that it is clear not only to the House but to those who implement the legislation and are subject to it.
      I turn to amendment (a), which was tabled by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He asked me a little about my experience of Sierra Leone. My recollection is

      405
      that I had very little to do with arms going to Sierra Leone—despite my reputation over the years. It is rather ironic if the purpose of the amendment is to allow the Government to act in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the legislation—the establishment of a licensing system that not only allows the legitimate export of arms, but controls and prevents arms sales that we do not want to occur—because there are some circumstances in which it is necessary for the Government to act, not simply quickly, but effectively and immediately.
      It is true that, as United Nations embargoes would be implemented by Order in Council, they would fall outside the provisions of the Bill. However, there are other circumstances to consider, such as the present conflict in Afghanistan. Whatever hon. Members' views on that, it was not foreseen well before the event and could not easily have been planned for.
      I can think of other such circumstances. After a period of prolonged but uneasy peace, Ecuador and Peru edged in a matter of days towards war. I also recall the situation in Indonesia with respect to East Timor. I went to East Timor for the referendum on independence. The European Union was faced with a mounting crisis in Indonesia and in relations between Indonesia and East Timor, and at very short notice imposed an embargo on weapons sales to Indonesia.
      There are times, therefore, when it is necessary to allow Governments to act instantly. It is right and proper that there should be parliamentary control—in many instances I would be at the forefront of those saying, "Let's not trust Ministers"—but amendment (a) would shackle the Government, preventing them acting in ways consistent with foreign policy objectives and maintaining the security of our fighting troops.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist pleas to alter the definition of weapons of mass destruction. He is right in the example that he cited. Technology moves very quickly and we may not be able to foresee future weapons of mass destruction. It would be ridiculous for us to define downwards our capacity to control such technology, which we ought to be restricting. I therefore urge him to leave the words "weapons of mass destruction" in the Bill.
      3 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) apologised for being delayed at the dentist. I apologise for being delayed while working in my office and for therefore following on television the speeches of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who courteously referred to the amendments that I moved on 18 October and to some of the remarks that I made at the time.
      It is true that I said that thorough parliamentary scrutiny is in the interests of good government, and that that is in the interests of not only Back Benchers of whatever party but the Executive—provided that it is not an opportunity for inordinate delay or unreasonable obstruction. I hasten to emphasise the words "unreasonable obstruction", because it was not until I heard the hon. Member for Salisbury that I realised that Hansard had recorded me as saying "unreasonable instruction". May I say immediately that I absolve the Opposition from ever being guilty of
      406
      unreasonable instruction? I have occasionally suspected that they had an unreasonable lack of instruction, but never unreasonable instruction. He also referred to my comments in withdrawing the amendment, when I said that I hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister would take account of the expressions from both sides of the House that the fullest scrutiny of secondary legislation was desirable.
      However, the hon. Member for Salisbury did not quote what I said immediately before that, when I indicated that, in relation to the negative resolution procedure, the Minster made the point in responding to my probing amendment that this procedure would deal purely with technical matters, such as minor changes in detailed lists. That seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable.
      On clause 3(2), I recognised that, in the case of emergencies, the delayed affirmative procedure might be the most appropriate procedure, particularly since the Minister had indicated that it would relate mostly to technical matters. I say to the hon. Member for Salisbury that I cannot see the advantage of trying to use something like royal prerogatives in these circumstances, as the procedure to which I have referred would be preferable. On 18 October, I stated that my amendment was intended purely as a probing amendment and that it was my intention to withdraw it. I felt that the Minister had answered a number of points satisfactorily and my amendment, as worded, was not appropriate to be pressed. I was slightly disappointed that some Opposition Members felt it appropriate to seek to deny me the opportunity to withdraw the amendment.
      The amendment tabled today by the hon. Member for Salisbury still does not take sufficient account of the Minister's response and raises the suspicion that, in this case, inordinate delay and unreasonable obstruction might be the intention behind it. The hon. Member for Salisbury showed good judgment on many occasions in Committee; I compliment him on his good judgment if he feels that his own party has a vested interest in the position of Opposition parties for some considerable time into the future. However, inordinate delay and unreasonable obstruction may be in the interests of Opposition sometimes, but they are not in the interests of good government. Therefore, I would not be proposing to vote for the amendment.
      Mr. David Heath: I have not contributed so far to discussions on the Bill, although I had some part in its genesis when I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which considered the matter at an early stage and formed part of the Quadripartite Committee, on which I served for a short time.
      I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) said; many of us have a great deal of respect for what he did when in office. One of the principal reasons for that was his advocacy of the EU code of conduct, which was an important advance. But, as he said, it has no force in law. It is a matter of agreement between the EU member states, but it does not fall within our statutes. That is why it is so important that we get the Bill right.
      I wish to refer to the question of whether sustainable development should be a criterion and whether it should be in the table in the schedule. The Minister will have some difficulty in persuading many of us that it should

      407
      not be there, for this reason. First, the argument against it being included might be that it fettered the discretion of Ministers. Clearly, it does not; it extends the discretion of Ministers to apply what Members on both sides of the House have agreed is a desirable criterion.
      The second reason might be that the criterion is otiose because the matter is covered elsewhere. If that argument is to be pursued—that the measure is unnecessary because the guidance can be relied upon entirely to give Ministers the discretion they need to make decisions without fear of judicial review or challenge in the courts—we must ask what the court's interpretation of the absence of that criterion from the list would be and whether it is more likely that it would evince a challenge from those who had had an export licence refused on those specific grounds, if it were on the face of the Bill or if it were not. My answer to that, not as a lawyer but as a layman, would be that it is inevitable that a court would be more easily persuaded that the Minister was acting beyond the express powers given in the legislation, if he was relying on guidance notes that were not on the face of the Bill than he would if he were relying on an express commitment and an inclusion in the schedule.
      Therefore I believe that the Minister needs to persuade the House, at the conclusion of the debate, that there is a good reason for not including that criterion in the list. It seems to me that many Members on both sides of the Chamber are not yet persuaded of that fact, and if that is the case he would be well advised to accept the advice that has been proffered, not least by some hon. Members on his side of the Chamber.
      Paul Farrelly: I welcome the Bill. It is an important new weapon in our armoury to restrain the merchants of death. However, having read the Standing Committee report, I am in confusion as to exactly who and what would be captured by the scope of the technical assistance provisions, so I should like to speak, if I may, to Government amendment No. 4. If you will bear with me for a short while, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to use a concrete example of a situation where I believe that we would all like arms dealing to be captured, but I am not quite sure whether it would be, and would appreciate the Minister's advice.
      I welcomed the assurances that the Minister gave in Committee that the Bill had sufficient scope to cover what some might call mercenary activities of United Kingdom nationals, but which might more broadly be called military support activities of UK nationals abroad; I very much look forward to the long overdue Green Paper on mercenaries. Some doubts were nevertheless raised that the courts might not uphold orders placed on such nefarious people, as the language of the Bill is not sufficiently precise. Therefore it is important in this debate to state that it is the will of Parliament that, as far as possible, such traffickers in death be captured by the Bill.
      At this time of the terrible conflict in Afghanistan, it is important that we do not forget other regions of the world where irresponsible arms dealing, against the will of the international community, is leading to death and destruction. I am thinking particularly of the terrible civil war in the Congo, where other African states that should know better are systematically looting a country that is already on its knees. Zimbabwe is one of the vultures at that feast—or rather, Robert Mugabe's henchmen are profiting while that war bankrupts their own country.
      408
      It is a little known fact that the main arms supplier to Zimbabwe and its adventure in the Congo is a UK resident, who runs his huge business empire from the royal county of Berkshire—from genteel Ascot and Windsor, to be precise. I should like to use his example to illustrate why the House should support the Bill, and to place in context my request for clarification from the Minister of the Bill's precise scope.
      Outside the sports pages, hon. Members would not find much reference to that gentleman, Mr. John Bredenkamp, in the UK press. With a fortune estimated at £400 million, he has deep pockets, expensive libel lawyers and a dangerous reputation. He is also extremely clever and careful, and does not readily leave end-user certificates lying around. Therefore it is safer for the press to chronicle his handling of sports stars—including Ernie Els and Francois Pienaar among many others—through his sports agency, Masters International, than his handling of arms. However, Mr. Bredenkamp has long had form of a distinctly unsporting kind, and he is exactly the sort of person based in this country whom the Bill should tackle.
      A former tobacco farmer, captain of the Rhodesian rugby team and member of Rhodesian special forces, Mr. Bredenkamp was a key figure in sanctions busting, so long ago, for Ian Smith, and when the regime changed he quite simply changed his allegiance. In 1994, the activities of Mr. Bredenkamp's then company, Casalee, were exposed by a courageous Channel 4 "Despatches" programme.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are actually discussing, in this group of amendments and the new clause, the general restriction on purposes of control orders. It may be more appropriate for the speech that he is currently delivering to be made at Third Reading.
      Paul Farrelly: I wanted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to deal with the scope of the orders that might be made under the technical assistance regime, which I understood to be part and parcel of the Government amendments.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I am concerned about the extent of the detail that the hon. Gentleman is giving.
      Paul Farrelly: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try to skip some of the detail, and get to the nub of my argument.
      The activities of Casalee have been well documented but, although he denies it, Mr. Bredenkamp is one of the major suppliers of arms to Mr. Mugabe. He is a key backer of ZANU-PF, and of a potential successor to Robert Mugabe. His companies are reliably believed to have supplied arms and equipment used by the Zimbabwean army, the Interahamwe, and the Mai-Mai tribesmen in eastern Congo. Many of those arms subsequently have found their way back to war veterans, and have been used in attacks on white-owned farms.
      In return, Mr. Bredenkamp has been a major beneficiary of Mr. Mugabe's largesse in Zimbabwe and the Congo. He is a major mover and shaker in southern Congo, and he has been awarded valuable diamond, cobalt and other mineral concessions. He has recently come to the attention of the United Nations panel investigating profiteering from the war in the Congo.

      409
      My hon. Friend the Minister has rightly said that the Bill should complement international co-operation between the UK, Europe and the UN in curbing arms dealing in world trouble spots. However, the matter of the scope of the technical assistance provisions in the Bill is relevant in connection with the very clever way in which Mr. Bredenkamp has structured his African involvement.
      Mr. Bredenkamp runs his master company, Breco Services, from Berkshire. His African activities are run through several separate companies based in Harare, in particular through one called ACS International. Mr. Bredenkamp therefore appears to break no UK laws, embargoes or restrictions—however formal or informal—by ostensibly keeping all his African arms-dealing activities offshore. Although UK policy is not to license arms sales to Zimbabwe, Mr. Bredenkamp is clearly able freely to subvert that policy.
      I should be grateful for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Department of Trade and Industry, by means of the Bill, will have the necessary powers, in conjunction with the Home Office and the Foreign Office, to investigate empires such as Mr. Bredenkamp's. I hope that it will use those powers to take such measures as are necessary to curb organisations that are structured in the same clever way.
      I hope too that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure the House that the relationships between Mr. Bredenkamp and any similar organisation will also be allowed to be examined under the Bill, as will the role of any UK company, including British Aerospace, in the supply of arms and military logistics to world trouble spots. The House will remember the controversy regarding the sale of Hawk aircraft parts to Zimbabwe by British Aerospace.
      Finally, there is one further twist with regard to Mr. Bredenkamp on which I should appreciate my hon. Friend's learned advice. Mr. Bredenkamp has rights of residence in the UK, but I understand that he is not a British passport holder. Instead, he holds Zimbabwean and Dutch passports. Is he caught under the definition of the Bill as a United Kingdom person who would then be subject to the technical assistance provisions?
      I should appreciate advice on that question, as I am sure that the House would agree that the Bill should be able to rein in precisely those activities that I have described—activities that mean that merchants of death use our country as their base, to the detriment of peace and stability in the rest of the world.
      Roger Casale: I spoke on Second Reading in support of the Bill, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make some brief comments about Government amendments Nos. 39 and 44, which would remove direct reference to sustainable development from the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that that reference was unnecessary because the issues connected with sustainable development were addressed in other parts of the Bill. I should welcome further reassurance that that is the case, but other hon. Members from all parties have emphasised their concerns and advocated that the Bill should expressly cover the matter of sustainable development.
      410
      Reference has also been made, and rightly, to yesterday's Second Reading of the International Development Bill. The question of sustainable development formed a central part of that debate, one of the features of which was the recognition that definitions of sustainable development were themselves subject to political debate and to change over time.
      In the 1980s, the Brundtland report defined sustainable development as development that did not prejudice the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However, one of the issues that has arisen from international development debates is that, when we talk of sustainable development, we should also talk about economic development that allows the society involved to sustain itself for many years to come. So sustainable development is not a clear concept; it is itself subject to change.
      3.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who speaks for the Opposition, said that it is necessary to balance the needs of the Government to be able to govern and take decisions with those of Parliament to provide effective scrutiny of the Government's actions. That important balance has to be struck, and it should concern us all, but this issue does not necessarily fit the schema of striking a balance between the Government and Parliament. I suggest that the balance that needs to be struck in considering how to refer to sustainable development is that between our ideals and aspirations and what is practicable and workable in the real world.
      We should remember that the last time that a Bill to control arms exports was introduced in the House was 1939. Whatever legislation we pass today will need to last for a very long time, so we must at least consider whether terms that are not as robust as they might be to sustain changes in their definition over time perhaps need to be deleted from the Bill.
      Some people will find it curious, perhaps even ironic, that we might remove reference to the adverse impact on sustainable development as a ground for restricting arms exports, while talking about introducing more joined-up thinking into government and while strengthening our commitment to sustainable development under the International Development Bill.
      I have tried to consider both sides of the argument, and I may be minded to accept the Government amendments, but before doing so, I should like the Minister to give further assurances that the commitment to sustainable development runs as a golden thread through the Bill and the work of the DTI, the Department for International Development and the Treasury, as well as all our attempts to improve the condition of people across the world.
      Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I must apologise for turning up late for this debate—unfortunately, in the best words of any film, I was unavoidably detained.
      Having served on the Committee, I am interested in two important aspects of the Bill, the first of which is the way in which the long-term scrutiny will be carried out. We discussed the importance of timing at great length. What shall we do if the Government are unable to hit their targets in the scrutiny period? Assuming that 57 per cent. of the applications are considered and that the rest are not in the time allocated, how do we then manage to bring

      411
      into play the longer-term licence applications? That may be a problem because they cannot be considered retrospectively—people will have to look ahead.
      Many of those issues will hinge on the movement of technology. We now discover that some companies' computer software can he bought for £5 in Hong Kong. That shows that technology develops extremely quickly in this country and throughout the world. One of the problems that must be considered is whether the amendments can be held up in law, given that we discovered in Committee that they cannot in many cases. Given the supersession of Europe, it is very difficult to understand how we as a Parliament can consider such matters in the longer term.
      Longevity is central to the Bill; it needs to be sustainable for as long as possible. Although the Bill is overdue, it has been superseded by human rights and other legislation.
      In Committee, we even discussed the export of cows in formaldehyde. I think that they should be exported, but that is a personal view. How does one give a licence for a work of art? For example, Greece seeks the return of the Elgin marbles, but could we scrutinise such an export licence in such way that the best interests of the United Kingdom remain at the forefront of people's minds?
      Although many of the amendments have merit, it is up to Parliament to scrutinise each one of them so that we can police and monitor the Bill. Will the House have the time and the ability to scrutinise complicated issues so that they are examined properly? The answer is probably no. It worries me that the Government want to be able to pass measures as quickly as possible without their receiving the necessary scrutiny.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an interesting point about East Timor and Hawk jets. I have not quite got to the bottom of the difference between a Hawk 100 and a Hawk 200, but would a licence cover the point that those jets are a dual-purpose piece of kit? The jet can be used as a trainer or as a fighter and bomber, and I do not understand how the House will be able to consider those points in the depth that is necessary for us to be able to take a decision. I am not an expert in chemistry but dual-purpose kit from chemicals is another of the biggest problems that we face. We have had our fingers burned so often that we need a usable and sustainable Bill that Governments will be able to stand by for a long time to come. If they cannot, that suggests that the Bill will be flawed even before it comes into force.
      For the longer term, we need to consider the points that I have raised about technology, dual-purpose kit and the way in which licences are introduced. If we do not get the Bill right, we shall suffer for a long time and, especially, under European legislation. Such legislation will be draconian if we are not careful.
      Mr. Key: The House has heard a number of firsts in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) may have been unavoidably detained, but he was a loyal attender in Standing Committee. He has scored a first. As far as I am aware of, he is the first person to have mentioned the export of works of art in the debate. I congratulate him. We should not forget that the Bill is also about the export of works of art.
      412
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) scored another first. He is a doughty man of Surrey, a good grammar school boy and he has made many contributions in the debate. However, it is absolutely astonishing that he should pop into the Chamber to say that he has been watching us on telly and to make a derogatory speech before popping back to watch us on telly again. If he is out there, let me tell him "We are still at it. How's the tea break?" That was a first, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his sheer audacity.
      However, the hon. Gentleman hit a nail on the head when he talked about unreasonable instructions and interventions. The point is that technical and minor provisions in the Bill matter most. There have been some brave words spoken on both sides, but those brave words might lead to lawyers' paradises if we are not careful. [Interruption.] Ah, I welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North back to the Chamber. I am envious of his opportunity to take a tea break or whatever it may have been that detained him in his room.
      The problem of defining the small print and the detail has been repeatedly mentioned. It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). I used to read him assiduously when he was business editor of The Independent on Sunday and The Observer. I have a feeling that his case was a continuation of previous investigations. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) put his finger on the button when he said that the problem was getting the balance right between the ideals and aspirations, and what is practical and workable.
      The Minister must explain why sustainable development is not mentioned in the Bill when it was included in the draft version. I am going to throw him a lifeline: I suspect that the DTI has been framed by other Departments. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and I, as former Ministers, recognise when a Minister has been framed. I suspect that the Minister and his officials were told to remove the reference to sustainable development before other Departments realised that they, too, had a problem. It is tempting for the Opposition to row in with those who want to cause serious trouble, but I shall resist that if the Minister gives a credible explanation of why it is not mentioned.
      It is important that the Minister recognises our disappointment in Committee when he did not give us a word of explanation for that decision, even though I made a gentle request for it when I said:
      "I should be very grateful for a brief explanation as to why that clause disappeared from the draft Bill".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 October 2001; c. 148.]
      If the Minister can give us a convincing answer to that, I will be the first to be pleased because I recognise the Government's difficulty.
      The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who has, I think, also caught an early plane back to the north, made an interesting point about the Swedish system. There are problems with it, because that system did not stop Sweden exporting fighter aircraft to South Africa as part of a multinational arms deal, so I am not sure that it has much to commend it.

      413
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was a little wide of the mark, however, when he said in last night's debate that the answer lies in Brundtland. He stated:
      "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."—[Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 319.]
      My goodness, if that is a legally watertight definition that the Government are expected to include in the Bill, I am in the wrong profession; I should definitely have been a lawyer. The Brundtland definition is full of aspiration and miles away from practicality. If the Government are being urged to adopt that, I have great sympathy with them.
      In last night's debate on Second Reading of the International Development Bill, I read with great interest the explanatory notes that had been prepared by the Department for International Development. Paragraph 19 states:
      "The terms 'poverty', 'sustainable development' and 'welfare' are not defined in the Bill. It is considered that to do so might reduce the United Kingdom's ability to offer assistance. Subsection (3) of clause 1 ensures that the Secretary of State will not be bound to take a view of sustainable development that is exclusively or excessively economic on the one hand or exclusively or excessively environmental on the other."
      Clause 1(3) of that Bill states:
      "'sustainable development' includes any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided."
      It sounds as though the Secretary of State for International Development has had a chat with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as prudence was cited in the definition as an important reason why Ministers should or should not act. I can see why people believe that such a broad definition is not acceptable.
      3.30 pm
      Moreover, in reply to yesterday's debate, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn)— whose credentials on the issue are surely impeccable—said:
      "I think that we have to ensure that the concept"—
      of sustainable development—
      "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 very 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."—[Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 335.]
      As I said, the Opposition are offering the Minister a lifeline. We do not wish to oppose new clause 1 or to support amendments that would tie his hands to a definition of sustainable development from which only lawyers could benefit and which would detract from the
      414
      judgment of the relevant Secretary of State. The matter now rests very much with the Minister. The House is owed an explanation of why the Government left out the paragraph on sustainable development from the table to the schedule, and I hope that the Minister will be able to put us right.
      Nigel. Griffiths: One of the great pleasures of being a Minister is the opportunity to listen and respond to the many thoughtful and well-informed speeches made by colleagues who take a great interest in the issues under debate. We have heard a number of such speeches today. We have also heard comments expressing our constituents' concerns about these issues. I shall address some of the issues that have been raised in the debate, almost in the order in which they were raised.
      Some hon. Members mentioned the time factor in the tabling of some of our amendments. I think that I have explained fairly clearly that, in Committee, certain aspects of the structure were unclear. Hon. Members suggested that the schedule should he applied to clauses 4 and 5. Taking those concerns on board with the Government's own concerns about the Bill's structure creating the risk of a loophole in the control powers, we concluded that it was necessary to amend the Bill as we are proposing in new clause 1.
      There is no question of the Government trying to rush through amendments at short notice. I wrote to members of the Standing Committee to explain that the new clause had been tabled partly in response to concerns that were expressed in Committee. I believe that the new clause is a necessary simplification and clarification of the Bill.
      I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for his kind offer of a lifeline. I shall not be taking him up on that offer, but I will allow him to save the lifeline for the Conservative party, which will have more need of it than I do. I also did not license the parachute that he mentioned in his opening remarks.
      I want to make one thing very clear on sustainable development. This Government have done more than any previous Government to promote the interests of the third world, both by spearheading the international campaign to relieve third-world debt—which has had a tremendous impact—and by providing a lead in writing off debts. We have led the drive to ensure that the people of the third world have a right to health, education and freedom from poverty. It is with that in mind that I should like to deal with some of the comments that just do not stand up.
      It is not true that sustainable development is not fully covered in the Bill. It is clearly included in the criteria against which applications are considered. It is not true that the Government cannot refuse an export licence on grounds that are not included in the schedule. I hope that my colleagues are reassured on that point. It is not true that sustainable development could not be a factor in a judicial review. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for whom I have great respect, put to me the direct question: would the use of sustainable development as a basis for the refusal of a licence stand up to judicial review? The answer is yes, it would.

      415
      There are legal opinions on this issue, but I do not have to remind the House, which is replete with lawyers, that an opinion is exactly that. An opinion is not a legal fact, otherwise cases would never reach court.
      Dr. Cable: Has the Minister seen the contrary legal opinion? Before reaching a firm conclusion, is he willing to review it?
      Nigel Griffiths: I have seen the opinion. The NGOs who commissioned it did me the great courtesy of coming to my office to discuss it with me. I am not a lawyer and so cannot pass legal judgment on it, but the opinion has been seen by the Government lawyers and it is that which has allowed me to respond so robustly and, I hope, helpfully. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central for having raised that issue and enabling us to put our position clearly on the record.
      Tony Worthington: I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. There is clearly a difference of opinion, so it would seem sensible for the Government to put the matter beyond all doubt by adding sustainable development to the criteria, so that we have no court problems in future. One of the benefits of scrutiny by parliamentarians is that we can get rid of the ambiguities that the Minister admits remain.
      Nigel Griffiths: No words spoken in the House and no Act of Parliament put anything beyond doubt. We know that from the plethora of court cases that arise. It is important that hon. Members respect the fact that when direct questions are put to me and I answer yes or no, we put beyond doubt the issues raised and we make clear our opinion on a legal opinion. The world is replete with legal opinions.
      Many hon. Members raised the question of sustainable development, and rightly so. Several pointed out, wrongly—I am sure that that was because they have misread briefings or the Bill—that sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated EU criteria that is not included in the Bill.
      Dr. Cable: Will the Minister give way?
      Nigel Griffiths: No. I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman and I want to make some progress. I do not know whether he was one of those who said that—we will check Hansard—but several hon. Members did, and at least one is willing to admit to having done so.
      Let us be clear. Another of the criteria that is not listed in the schedule is criterion 7. which covers diversion. I explained that if diversion were to be listed in the schedule, it would give us the power to impose controls by order solely on the grounds that the goods might be diverted, which would in effect allow us to control all exports of any goods because any goods might be diverted. That goes to the heart of the distinction between the schedule, which allows us to impose controls, and clause 7, which requires us to take the criteria into account when taking licensing decisions.
      Nothing in the Bill will affect one jot the Government's current ability to take criterion 8—sustainable development—fully into account. The Bill makes it clear that matters in the schedule are not the only matters that
      416
      can form the basis of a licensing decision. The purposes essentially determine the reasons for which controls can be imposed on particular goods and technology.
      Another issue was raised in that context.
      Mr. Roger Berry: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Nigel Griffiths: I shall finish what I was saying and then give way.
      It has been said that no matter how benign, effective or otherwise I am as a Minister, or the Government are, a future Government may choose to ignore the EU criteria because they are not in the schedule. Even if a future Government tried to withdraw or water down the guidance on the criteria in the Bill, the EU code of conduct on arms exports would continue to apply until specifically withdrawn by the EU in its common foreign and security policy formation. I see no prospect of that happening. If anything, the direction of continuing discussions within the EU is to strengthen the code.
      Mr. Berry: Does my hon. Friend not accept that there will be less doubt if sustainable development is one of the criteria in the Bill?
      Nigel Griffiths: There may also be less flexibility. It is important to ensure that the EU code of conduct on arms exports is applied throughout the EU and is strengthened. We have been at the forefront of that process.
      The issue of Lord Scott's opinions has been raised. The Bill clearly addresses his criticisms by setting out in the schedule the reasons for which controls may be imposed on the export of goods, the transfer of technology, the provision of technical assistance and trade in goods, and further by making it clear in clause 7 that the consolidated criteria will continue to inform day-to-day decisions on export licences.
      Angus Robertson: Will the Minister clarify whether he is asserting that the EU code of conduct is legally binding?
      Nigel Griffiths: The Government are taking into account, and must do so, the consolidated criteria in the EU code of conduct. We have done that, and are continuing to do so. I have made it clear that the possibility of a future Government changing the policy and trying to duck their responsibilities is virtually non-existent.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) referred to some specific examples, but as he knows, I cannot comment on individual cases. However, he raised an important point of principle on which I think the House will want to have the Government's views on record. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Bill will give us the power to control UK citizens and anyone operating in the UK, which I think was the point that he was making. He was concerned about someone who was not a UK citizen who was a trafficker and broker in arms to arms-embargoed destinations such as Zimbabwe. Such people will be caught. That is important.

      417
      I shall ensure for the benefit of the House—
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister give way?
      Nigel Griffiths: No. I want fully to answer the point that my hon. Friend made. No doubt will be created by the current formulation in the Bill. The code is not legally binding, but there is no realistic prospect of any Government withdrawing from it. It is a political commitment, and one that causes me to urge on the House acceptance of the Government's amendments and the rejection—
      Mr. Lansley rose—
      Nigel Griffiths: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has not been in the Chamber throughout the debate.
      I ask the House to reject the amendments that have not been tabled by the Government for the very good grounds that I have set out.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 4, leave out from "order" to end of line 6 and insert—

      '(a) has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and

      (b) provides—

      (i) for the order to expire, or

      (ii) for the provision imposing them to cease to have effect,'.—[Mr. Key.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 251.

      Division No. 51]

      [3.45 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Amess, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Baker, Norman

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Baldry, Tony

      Francois, Mark

      Baron, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Barrett, John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodman, Paul

      Brady, Graham

      Gray, James

      Brooke, Annette

      Grayling, Chris

      Burstow, Paul

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Cameron, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Chope, Christopher

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Clappison, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Hayes, John

      (Rushcliffe)

      Heath, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Collins, Tim

      Hoban, Mark

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Holmes, Paul

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Horam, John

      Doughty, Sue

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Fallon, Michael

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      418

      Key, Robert

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Ruffley, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lamb, Norman

      Selous, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Laws, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Leigh, Edward

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Streeter, Gary

      Lidington, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Luff, Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Swire, Hugo

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Syms, Robert

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Moore, Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Weir, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Whittingdale, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Paice, James

      Willetts, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Prisk, Mark

      Willis, Phil

      Pugh, Dr John

      Wilshire, David

      Randall, John

      Wishart, Pete

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Mr. Julian Brazier and

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Mr. Laurence Robertson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      (Norwich S)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Austin, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Baird, Vera

      Coleman, Iain

      Barnes, Harry

      Connarty, Michael

      Battle, John

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Corston, Jean

      Beard, Nigel

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Cox, Tom

      Berry, Roger

      Cranston, Ross

      Best, Harold

      Crausby, David

      Betts, Clive

      Cruddas, Jon

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Borrow, David

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      David, Wayne

      Brennan, Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Bryant, Chris

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burden, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burnham, Andy

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Caplin, Ivor

      Doran, Frank

      Casale, Roger

      Dowd, Jim

      Caton, Martin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Chaytor, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Clapham, Michael

      Efford, Clive

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Ennis, Jeff

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Farrelly, Paul

      419

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McNulty, Tony

      Flint Caroline

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Flynn, Paul

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Follett, Barbara

      Mallaber, Judy

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Mann, John

      Galloway, George

      Marris, Rob

      Gardiner, Barry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (WalsallS)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gibson. Dr lan

      Merron, Gillian

      Gilroy, Linda

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Godsiff, Roger

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Griffiths. Jane (Reading E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Grogan, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Morgan, Julie

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mountford, Kali

      Havard, Dai

      Mullin, Chris

      Healey, John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hepburn, Stephen

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hesford, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      O'Neill, Martin

      Heyes, David

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Hill, Keith

      Owen, Albert

      Hinchliffe, David

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hodge, Margaret

      Pearson, Ian

      Hope, Phil

      Perham, Linda

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Plaskitt, James

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pond, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pound, Stephen

      Hurst, Alan

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jenkins, Brian

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Robertson, John

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Joyce, Eric

      Rooney, Terry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ross, Ernie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Roy, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kemp, Fraser

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ryan, Joan

      Kidney, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      King, Andy (Rugby Kenilworth)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lammy, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Lepper, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Levitt, Tom

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Linton, Martin

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Love, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      Luke, Iain

      Southworth, Helen

      Lyons, John

      Squire, Rachel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McCabe, Stephen

      Stevenson, George

      McCafferty, Chris

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      MacDougall, John

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McFall, John

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      McKechin, Ann

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      420

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Watson, Tom

      Timms, Stephen

      Watts, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      White, Brian

      Todd, Mark

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Touhig, Don

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Trickett, Jon

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Woolas, Phil

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Worthington, Tony

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Tynan, Bill

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Mr. John Heppell.

      Question accordingly negatived. Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      EXERCISE OF LICENSING POWER UNDER CONTROL ORDERS
      '(1) In deciding how to exercise a licensing power under a control order in connection with controls imposed by virtue of paragraph 4, 4A, 4B or 4C of the Schedule, regard shall be had, among other things, to any potential consequences of the activities being controlled that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 4D of the Schedule.
      (2) Otherwise, nothing in paragraph 4, 4A, 4B or 4C of the Schedule limits—

      (a)the reasons which may justify a decision to grant or refuse a licence or to exercise any other licensing power under a control order in any particular way; or

      (b) the matters to which regard may be had in the exercise of any licensing power under a control order.'.— [Nigel Griffiths.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 3—Licence revocation and end-use controls—
      '(1) The Secretary of State may revoke, suspend or amend any licence issued under any of the powers conferred by this Act where any of the parties referred to in the relevant licence fail to honour their export licence obligations.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall revoke any licence issued under any of the powers conferred by this Act where the execution of the licence:

      (a) results in any of the consequences referred to in the Table in paragraph 4 of the Schedule, or

      (b) results in consequences which contravene any of the consolidated criteria relating to export licensing decisions announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State on 26th October 2000.

      (3) For the purpose of sub-section 1 "export licence obligations" will include, but not be limited to, end-use undertakings stipulated in the relevant licence or end-use documentation.
      (4) Upon the revocation of a licence, all future exports of goods, transfers of technology, provision of technical assistance or trade in controlled goods authorised by or relating to the licence shall be cancelled.
      (5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for follow-up monitoring of the use made of goods exported, technology transferred, technical assistance provided or goods traded, in order

      421
      to establish whether the end-use commitments entered into as a consequence of applying for an export licence (required by an order under section 1, 2, 4 or 5) are being honoured.'.
      New clause 4—Prior parliamentary scrutiny—
      'As part of the licence application process required by an order under section 1, 2, 4 or 5, the Secretary of State may take advice from a Parliamentary Select Committee.'
      New clause 6—Prior parliamentary scrutiny—
      'The Secretary of State may consult with any Select Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords before a determination regarding an application for a licence required by an order under section 1, 2, 4 or 5 is completed.'.
      New clause 7—Revocation of licences—
      '(1) Any licence or Community Licence granted under this Act, or having effect as if so granted, may be amended, suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State at any time and in such circumstances and on such terms as she thinks fit by serving notice to that effect on the holder of the licence or Community Licence.
      (2) For the purpose of this clause "such circumstances" and "such terms" will include, but not be limited to, breaches of the end-use undertakings stipulated in the relevant licence or end-use documentation.
      (3) With immediate effect from the date of revocation,—

      (a) any further exports of goods, transfers of technology, provision of technical assistance or trade in controlled goods authorised by the licence, and

      (b) the provision of further equipment, technology, training, transport or technical, promotional, or financial assistance in support of goods, technology or technical assistance already supplied under the relevant licence shall be cancelled.'.

      Nigel Griffiths: New clause 2 is a Government new clause, and I shall explain why it is necessary. I shall also explain why I consider that new clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7 should be withdrawn.
      New clause 2 follows as a consequential amendment to the group of amendments relating to new clause 1. In effect, it replicates the second half of the current clause 3 relating to the reasons that may be taken into account in decision making on export licences. I urge hon. Members to accept it.
      New clauses 3 and 7 deal with licence revocation and end-use controls. Both would give the Secretary of State the power to revoke, suspend or amend any licence issued under the Bill. They also allow revocation where obligations under end-use undertakings were not honoured, and require the Secretary of State to revoke the licence if its execution had any of the consequences listed in the table of the schedule or contravened the consolidated criteria.
      4 pm
      New Clause 3 would allow the Secretary of State to make provision by order for end-use monitoring of any exports under the licence; new clause 7 to cancel the provision of various goods or services in support of any goods, technology or technical assistance already supplied under a licence with effect from revocation. The new clauses are unnecessary, because the Government already have powers to revoke, suspend and amend export licences. Those powers will be carried forward in the new Bill.
      It might be helpful if I explained the present position, and the position under the new Bill. Under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939,
      422
      the Secretary of State has power to revoke, suspend or amend any form of licence, whether open or individual. Those powers apply to licences themselves. Details of revocations are included in the annual reports on strategic export controls. Revocation might take place when there is clear evidence that an undertaking given by the end user is likely to be broken because the situation in the recipient country changes significantly after a licence is issued. Revocation might also apply when new information comes to light after a licence has been issued that would have led to the refusal of an application.
      If we had reliable evidence of a past breach of an end-use undertaking or the risk of diversion in relation to a specific destination, those factors would certainly be taken into consideration in the assessment of any future licence applications involving that end-user destination.
      As for the new Bill, the dummy orders with which we provided the Committee contain revocation, suspension and amendment provisions. The dummy orders on the export of goods, the transfer of technology and the provision of technical assistance—all of which are mentioned in the new clause—provide for the revocation of licences in article 10(5) on page 10. The dummy order on trade in controlled goods provides for revocation under article 5(2)on page 4. The example we have provided of a dummy order giving effect to an embargo includes revocation in article 4(2) on page 2.
      The circumstances in which revocation would be considered are the same under the Bill as in existing legislation. The power of revocation, suspension and amendment follows the well-established precedent established in the 1939 Act, in which related secondary legislation also contained the revocation provisions. As for the Exports of Goods (Control) Order 1994, a copy of which we supplied to the Committee before the recess, article 7(1) mentioned the revocation control. Decisions to revoke licences are made by the Secretary of State on a case-by-case basis, in the light of all the relevant information.
      As I have said, if there were reliable evidence that an end-use undertaking was about to be breached, revocation would be considered. If new information came to light that would have led to a refusal against the consolidated criteria, revocation would be considered. If circumstances changed significantly in the end-use destination, revocation would be considered.
      Revocation is of course a serious step, with significant consequences for the exporter as well as the UK's reputation as a supplier. All such decisions to revoke need to be assessed carefully. Revoking a licence will prevent the export of any as yet unexported items covered by the licence. What the consequences would be for other non-licensable items related to items exported under the licence would be a matter for the relevant contract, which is of course a legal and commercial matter between the exporter and the customer, rather than the licence. Rather than imposing an obligation to revoke licences in the event of any of the consequences listed in the table of the schedule, or contravention of the consolidated criteria, we should take those factors into account at the licensing stage. We already do that.
      Failure to take the relevant factors into account in either case would open the decision to possible successful legal challenge. Imposing an obligation to revoke licences in certain circumstances would also impose an obligation on

      423
      the Government to carry out end-use monitoring of every export. The Government do not believe that the end-use monitoring issue needs to be addressed in new primary legislation. Of course, it is important that arms exported from the UK should not be misused or diverted to any undesirable end-users. Although it is difficult to see what the measure could practically do to minimise the risk of that happening, the Government have already shown that they are ready and able to monitor the end use of defence exports in circumstances where that can make a genuine contribution to our efforts to prevent diversion or misuse and, as I have explained already, we possess the power of revocation.
      Mr. John Battle: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that power has ever been used?
      Nigel Griffiths: Yes. 1 assure my hon. Friend that the power has been used. It is one of the criteria that I as Minister and my predecessors have taken into account. I will send him the section from the annual report that we produced that shows a number of licences that have been revoked for that purpose. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to explain that clearly to the House. It is a real power: a power that has been used, not a power that has perhaps lapsed or is ineffective. The key is that the Secretary of State possesses the necessary powers. The Bill itself does not need to include detailed provisions about that matter, and I invite hon. Members not to press the new clause.
      New clauses 4 and 6 on prior parliamentary scrutiny provide for the Government to take advice from a parliamentary Select Committee on export licence applications in advance of licensing decisions. The Government's response to the Quadripartite Committee in July this year set out the reasons why we believed that such a system of prior scrutiny would not be right in principle, and could not be made to work in practice without having a significant adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing process. The Government have made it clear that they see Parliament's role as one of scrutinising decisions after they have been taken and inputting it into policy, not taking part in the decision-making process itself.
      Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am intrigued by the impact that prior scrutiny would have on the efficiency and good working of the export licence department. My colleagues in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry have considered the matter over the previous two Parliaments and will probably return to the issue in this one. Over the years, we have found it very difficult to see what additional problems could be visited on the poor civil servants in that department. Perhaps my hon. Friend could be explicit as to which sections, which areas and which difficulties are likely to create extra work for those poor civil servants who have been grossly burdened over the years. The fact is that the improvements have increased efficiency. I would like to know how there will be a regression in the service as a consequence of prior scrutiny.
      Nigel Griffiths: I would be happy to take my hon. Friend on a tour of the department to give him a number of examples, but to answer his point directly, it is vital that there should be no delays when decisions are taken
      424
      on licences. We have set targets to clear decisions in 20 days, but as he and the House know, consultations will take place, especially on those licences where we are determined to ensure that there is no risk of diversion of end use, where we are determined to avoid an embargo, and indeed where circumstances have changed in the country. We are determined to ensure that the input from colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and indeed the Department for International Development are firmly taken into account. Having considered the Quadripartite Committee's evidence, we have concluded that further delays would be introduced. I do not have to tell my hon. Friend about the necessity of convening a Committee and supplying papers to its members so that it could meet to consider them. It is interesting that very few legislatures have any form of prior parliamentary scrutiny. My hon. Friend nods in acknowledgement. I have some criticisms of those that do. It is vital that Parliament has the ability to hold the Government to account and in my remarks I do not mean to underestimate either the concern or the need to ensure that there is proper scrutiny.
      Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend mentioned other Parliaments. The largest arms exporter in the world is the United States and it has a system of prior scrutiny, which some of us have had an opportunity to study at first hand. If the largest arms exporter in the world does not find it a problem, why should this Government?
      Nigel Griffiths: I know that my hon. Friend has real concerns about this. Let me refer her to some of the key briefings that we have had on this matter. One of them freely acknowledges that the United States has prior parliamentary scrutiny, but says that enforcement is ineffective in far too many cases. That is one of the key problems of the American system and anyone who prays it in aid.
      We want an effective system and that is why we have taken key decisions in the Bill to ensure that we have the most practical and tough regime. Parliamentary scrutiny at the appropriate stage is important. Our annual reports on strategic export controls have opened up the Government's export licensing policy and brought about unprecedented scrutiny and debate. I know that hon. Members have widely welcomed the reports and that industry and other non-governmental organisations have been complimentary.
      I am pleased that the Bill will make the publication of an annual report a statutory requirement. In view of all that, I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses. For the reasons that I gave, I commend new clause 2 to the House.
      Mr. Key: It is not my intention to oppose Government new clause 2, but I need to concentrate on it for a few minutes because it has changed significantly the wording and the Government's message in this legislation. I need to understand exactly what the Government mean.
      In Committee, there was an interesting exchange between the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and the Minister. The hon. Lady said:
      "I must dispute the Minister's claim that subsection (4) covers actual people. We are talking about people who are training to be mercenaries and to fight, perhaps with their bare hands. We are not talking about goods and services or technology of any description."
      The Minister replied:
      "I should not have to tell the hon. Lady that mercenaries need equipment and technology; they thrive on it. They do not generally go around using their bare hands; they are well armed. It is clear from the examples that we have been given of websites and from advertisements that people will not train in America without the equipment that the hon. Member for Salisbury mentioned. It is important to note that people provide services, and mercenaries provide a despicable service that requires an infrastructure."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 October 2001; c. 99.]
      That is significant because new clause 2 refers to paragraph 4D of the schedule. Paragraph 4D says that regard shall be had to
      "(a) acts threatening international peace and security".
      New clause 2(2) says
      "nothing in paragraph 4, 4A, 4B or 4C of the Schedule limits …
      (b) the matters to which regard may be had in the exercise of any licensing power under a control order."
      I ask for clarification because there seems to have been a change. In the interests of their legislation, the Government needed to change the wording.
      4.15 pm
      I drew attention in Committee to the European Union June 2000 agreement on the control of technical assistance related to weapons of mass destruction, and pointed out that it embodied important principles. In paragraph 45 of command paper 5091, technical assistance is defined thus:
      "Technical assistance, as defined in the joint action, means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service and may take forms such as instruction, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services and includes oral forms of assistance."
      The hon. Lady knew that the EU had included people in its documentation and that the Bill, as drafted at that time, did not. However, the new wording seems to include people. If that is so, I warmly welcome the fact, but must therefore assume, unless it is explained otherwise, that that covers the problem of mercenaries.
      I perceive that although we signed up to that EU document, there is a gap in the Bill concerning mercenary activity. The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 prevents British subjects from serving against countries with which the UK is at peace. However, there has been no successful prosecution under that Act since its introduction more than 130 years ago.
      The Government's lack of power to regulate mercenaries was demonstrated in December 1989, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the international convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries. According to the former Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), whom I am glad to see in his place, the Government had no plans to sign the convention. In a written answer in 1998, which I do not for one moment expect him to remember, he said:
      "We have no plans at present to sign and ratify the International Convention against Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. We have doubts concerning its legal enforceability in the United Kingdom. We are looking at options for national domestic regulation of military companies."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 16W.]
      426
      Then we had the Legge report on the Government's handling of the situation in Sierra Leone and the activities of Sandline International. At that stage, the Foreign Office promised:
      "To issue within 18 months a Green Paper on mercenary activity, taking account of discussions with our partners in the UN, the EU and other international fora. The Paper will address both the international and the UK context."
      That was in the second report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, session 1998–99, on Sierra Leone, Cmnd. 4325. The Green Paper has yet to emerge.
      On 6 April 2001, in a written answer at column 298W, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whom I am also delighted to see in his place—I would not for one moment expect him to remember what he said all that time ago either—expressed his regret that the Green Paper expected in November 2000 had not been published.
      I then raised the matter with the Home Secretary during a statement on terrorism a few weeks ago. Since then, we have been told that the Foreign Office is making some progress on the matter. On 29 October, the Financial Times reported:
      "The Foreign Office said yesterday: 'Work on the green paper is now well advanced and we hope to be able to inform parliament about its publication soon."'
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has received a written answer this afternoon from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that said that progress was being made and that it hopes to have something to report soon.
      We all want to address the problem of mercenaries; we are agreed on that. Is this an opportunity for mercenaries to be brought into the scope of the Bill? The Minister was clear in his courteous and detailed explanation why they were not included previously. My sole purpose in raising the question is to get an answer in this debate to the query about mercenaries.
      Mr. Berry: In speaking primarily to new clause 7 and the issue of revocation, I do so in the spirit of my speech on Second Reading. I warmly welcome the Bill. Together with other Government measures taken over the past four years, we now have a policy on arms exports and an attitude to controlling exports that did not exist previously. That contrasts sharply with the regime prior to May 1997. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought I had better get the "Hear, hears" at the beginning.
      It is in that spirit that I wish to say that friends and supporters of what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing feel that we have a responsibility to point out ways in which the Bill can be improved. With other colleagues, I tabled new clause 7 in that spirit. I believe that the Government should have the explicit authority to revoke licences where end-use undertakings or other licence obligations have been broken. That should be an explicit authority in the Bill.
      I heard what my hon. Friend the Minister said; namely, that the Government already have the power to revoke licences and that the new clause was unnecessary. If we look at past experience, we can see why some of us feel that the Minister is perhaps being slightly optimistic. With others, I had the pleasure of serving from the beginning on the Quadripartite Select Committee and we looked at

      427
      recent experience. When I am told that the Government have no problems in revoking licences, I think of some examples that the Committee looked at in depth—in particular I think of Hawks spare parts, Indonesia and Zimbabwe.
      First, I wish to refer to Indonesia. In July 1997, the Government announced new criteria to be applied to arms exports. These were warmly welcomed by all those who felt that it was time to get the trade under firmer control. I very much welcomed the criteria announced at the time. The Government said also at the time that it would be neither realistic nor practical to review existing export licences. The one area where that caused most concern was the existing outstanding licences for arms exports to Indonesia.
      In May 1997, the Labour Government inherited 125 active export licences for Indonesia. I will not explain how we got into that position; others may wish to comment. As hon. Members know, there was particular concern about the export of Hawks to Indonesia, given the human rights violations in East Timor. The Government's view was that it was not realistic or practical to review existing licences. The Quadripartite Select Committee interviewed Ministers and produced a report that commented on the matter.
      The Committee did not think it impractical to review 125 licences, but we made a note that the reason the Government felt that it was not realistic was based on legal advice about the potential for legal action by exporters if individual licences were revoked. We requested sight of that advice and, perhaps for perfectly understandable reasons, the Government declined to respond to that invitation. That is one example of where there is doubt about the Government's ability to revoke export licences if they so wished. In that case, we had a change of Government and a change of policy. That new policy was applied to new export licence applications—and full credit to the Government for applying it—but the Government felt that they could not review existing licences for fear of legal action.
      The second example is much more recent. There were similar concerns about end-use and contractual obligations regarding the transfer of Hawk spare parts to Zimbabwe in February 2000. I shall briefly quote the relevant part of the Quadripartite Committee's report of July 2000:
      "On 24 February 2000 the seven outstanding licence applications for Hawk spares were granted. It is not disputed that Hawks have been used in the intervention in the DRC, and there remains a clear risk that they might be used again. Without these spares it has been widely reported that two of the Hawks would be unable to operate … The particular difficulty seen by the Government in the case of the Hawk spares arose from the contractual obligation on BAE Systems to facilitate the supply of spares for 15 years after delivery of the aircraft."
      As it happens, that contractual obligation was subsequently overridden by a ministerial licensing decision and an arms embargo was announced in May, but in February the argument was, "Gosh, we cannot go ahead with what we would like to do—restrict spares supplies to Zimbabwe because the aircraft are being used in the Democratic Republic of Congo—because of legal obligations". In the report of the Quadripartite Committee published in July 2000, that discussion was noted word for word.
      428
      The key issue is that when the Government are deciding whether to revoke an export licence due to, for example, a breach in end-use undertakings, the Government must not be compromised by the risk of legal challenge by the exporter. The Minister, in good faith, has said that he does not believe that that situation need occur, given the Government's existing powers. I have provided him with two examples—there are others, but I shall keep my comments brief—where real concerns were expressed by Ministers at the highest level to the Quadripartite Committee about the Government's existing legal powers. By amending the Bill to include the power to revoke licences for breaches of export licence obligations, the Government would lessen the likelihood of legal challenge and send a clear signal that problems associated with end use were taken seriously.
      I am pretty sure that there is no disagreement on that. In article 10(5) of the dummy order on export of goods, transfer of technology and provision of technical assistance, the following statement appears:
      "Any licence or Community Licence under this Order, or having effect as if so granted, may be amended, suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State at any time and in such circumstances and on such terms as she thinks fit by serving notice to that effect on the holder of the licence or Community Licence."
      Those words happen to be the same, word for word, as the first subsection of new clause 7.
      Roger Casale: Will my hon. Friend clarify his argument? Is he saying that, in the instances that he has mentioned, the licences should have been revoked simply because there had been a change of policy and a change of Government, or had there been material changes in the use to which those arms were being put and the circumstances in which they were being used?
      Mr. Berry: Because of legal considerations, the Government felt under some obligation to supply spare parts that was contrary to the stated aims of the Government's arms export policy. That is the concern: that there was a conflict, arising from the fact that the Government did not believe that they could interfere with existing licences. For example, in the case of the supply of spare parts for Hawks in Zimbabwe that were used in the DRC, the company had an inherited legal obligation to supply spare parts, so the Government felt that, despite the fact that it was contrary to their policy, they could not act.
      Given that the words that form the bulk of new clause 7 are already in the dummy order that the Government have published, how about another cut-and-paste job?
      Given that the dummy order makes it clear what powers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants and will take, I do not understand why those powers cannot be specified in the Bill. A similar argument arose in the previous debate, but we must not forget that problems have arisen in recent times over the revocation of licences. It is not entirely accurate to say that the Government have all the powers that they need, as the Select Committee evidence makes clear.
      The power to revoke licences is vital, and should be included on the face of the Bill.
      4.30 pm
      Dr. Cable: I wish to speak to new clause 3, which goes over much of the ground with regard to revocation set out so authoritatively by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), and to new clause 4, which deals with the separate and important issue of price scrutiny.
      With regard to new clause 3, many hon. Members are struggling to understand how the Government can use the excuse of legal difficulties to explain what they could not follow through on licences, yet at the same time assure people that no legal problem existed. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) pursued the question of the Hawk aircraft and Indonesia, and the Zimbabwe case has also been mentioned. Until the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) intervened a few minutes ago, I had not been aware that the revocation powers had been used successfully. I should he interested to know in which cases those powers had been used, as the impression given in the past was that serious legal difficulties attended their use.
      However, the legal difficulties do not affect only those seeking to impose controls. The industry is naturally concerned about its reputation, but any export control system will mean that licences will be revoked occasionally. That is the nature of the industry, as I am sure that those involved are well aware. We believe that clarity in this matter would aid both the industry and those who want to impose controls. Therefore, we should set out clearly and explicitly what revocation means, and under what circumstances it can be invoked.
      Regardless of one's views about specific cases or the merits of tougher controls, clarity is to be preferred to the rather mysterious and opaque processes that the Government appear to favour. That is why new clause 3 sets out the circumstances in which the Government would have discretion to revoke licences, and the circumstances in which licences must be revoked. When the breaking of end-use undertakings leads to revocation, the new clause specifies what effect that revocation would have. It would also give the Secretary of State specific powers to follow up and monitor the use made of exports. New clause 3 would therefore make the process much less opaque, and that greater transparency would be more satisfactory for everyone involved.
      I am not a lawyer, but the non-governmental organisations have sought advice about the legal implications of the Bill. They have been told that the law is difficult, and that it is becoming more so. That is because more precedents have been established in which abuse of power is cited as grounds for disputing Government actions. That approach is becoming increasingly entrenched in the courts, where it is argued that the legitimate expectations of private persons often can be overridden where statutory duties or overriding policy interests are involved. It will become increasingly difficult for the Government to use their legal powers—such as they are—unless that problem is taken account of properly.
      In normal circumstances, the Government would argue in a legal action that there had been a material change of circumstances, but that may not be adequate to allow the Government to enforce their authority in this regard. We want the Government to explain more clearly what their legal powers are, and they should give the House some examples of how those powers have been imposed successfully without causing serious friction.
      430
      I should also be grateful for a description from the Minister of how the Government are taking account of the way in which the law is developing. That development and the scepticism of judges are, arguably, making it more difficult for the Government to introduce powers such as those needed for revocation.
      New clause 4 involves prior scrutiny—an important issue. I shall not speak at length about that because other hon. Members who have chaired Select Committees or served on the Quadripartite Committee have studied that issue in detail. I shall summarise the key arguments, as I understand them. There has already been something of a game of ping-pong—the Quadripartite Committee reported in July and advocated prior scrutiny and the Government responded to that suggestion, and in a second round the Quadripartite Committee addressed the concerns that were expressed. An iterative process has already taken place, and many of the Government's objections to prior scrutiny have been very carefully considered. I hope therefore that the debate will be somewhat more advanced than those in the earlier stages.
      As Labour Members have said, precedents for prior scrutiny exist in the very different political environments of the United States and Sweden. The Government keep arguing that because holes exist in the American system, we should not learn any lessons from it. I have never understood the logic of that argument. There may be holes in the American control system, but that probably has nothing to do with prior scrutiny, which is intended to serve other objectives.
      I shall briefly summarise the three arguments that the Government have adduced for not ceding prior scrutiny, the first of which is constitutional. They argue that Parliament, acting in its legislative capacity, may duplicate or conflict with the Executive's role. People who specialise in public and constitutional law have given their advice and they see absolutely no problem with that. Perhaps the Government will explain in a little more detail why they view that as an immovable barrier. That is not at all clear to the lawyers, let alone to the generalists.
      The second issue is commercial confidentiality. At the very worst, the integrity of Members and their ability to maintain secrets is being questioned, but perhaps that is not what the Government are worried about; they are probably worried about inadvertent leaks of confidential information. That issue has been argued through before and several key points have been made. First, a good deal of what might be viewed as important commercial information is already released in advance of a licence being agreed. I understand that the publisher of Jane's catalogues already has a process whereby information is exchanged. Codes of conduct and protocols have been developed, and there is not necessarily a problem.
      Many of the issues that matter most to business involve the financial details of contracts. There is no reason why prior scrutiny should necessarily involve Members of Parliament considering those details. In any event, the flow of information is controlled by Her Majesty's Government and by the Minister, so MPs involved in scrutiny do not have unlimited access to all the information. If the process can be managed, with those necessary safeguards, most of us are far from clear why Members who serve on the Quadripartite Committee cannot he entrusted with safeguarding the necessary commercial information.

      431
      The third argument that is adduced is that the process causes unnecessary delay. Again, it is far from clear why that should be so. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who is Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, has already defused that argument in his witty way.
      The scrutiny process operates in parallel to that in the civil service, so we are not talking about additional time; there is no inherent reason why we would add to the 20-day process, and those applications that are, in any event, highly politically controversial will not be completed within the 20-day rule. Most of those arguments have already been addressed by the Quadripartite Committee, which, as the Minister knows, is an all-party Committee of respected Members from both sides of the House. I simply hope that he will deal with that all-party wisdom slightly more sensitively than he did during the debate on the previous group of amendments and that we can make progress.
      Mr. O'Neill: I take on board the point, made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about the ping-pong process that we have undergone. The issue has been lobbed over the net, one way and another.
      I want to speak to new clause 6, and it is fair to say that the experience abroad is variable to say the least. I do not necessarily think that we should pray in aid precedents from elsewhere.
      Sweden has a sanitised committee made up of the great and the good and it is chaired by a member of the royal family who may or may not have expertise in such matters. 1 have been a great supporter of things Swedish and certainly the great traditions of the Swedish Social Democrat Governments of the past. However. on this issue, the Swedish experience is not particularly valuable or one that we should replicate in the United Kingdom. The committee there does not enjoy much confidence from Swedish non-governmental organisations.
      In the United States, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is very much under the control of its chairman. When we were in the United States, the committee had a Republican chairman, Jesse Helms, at the time of a Democrat presidency. To say that the committee became a political football is an understatement.
      We must also recognise that the Foreign Relations Committee has a high financial threshold. I think that it examines only those contracts worth more than $14 million, which is a pretty large sum. However, that means that many small, nasty contracts can be swept under the table without anyone knowing about them. The scale of the American task, and the manner in which it is applied, does not lend itself to the type of prior scrutiny that we seek.
      As a Quadripartite Committee, we do not seek the power to instigate inquiries. In some sensitive contracts, it would be to the advantage of all concerned to have a broader degree of scrutiny and consultation.
      Before the election, we gained the impression that we were beginning to make progress. Indeed, paragraph 33 of the Quadripartite Committee's report of 1 May said:
      "We were pleased to have the Secretary of State's assurance that the proposals for parliamentary prior scrutiny we had made in our March 2001 report could indeed be introduced without primary legislation. We continue to recommend strongly that they should be so introduced."
      432
      Previous Secretaries of State for Defence, for Trade and Industry and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs were of a different cast of mind to the new lot. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister does not have the final word on all these matters in the high levels of government. Our friendship of more than 25 years will not be prejudiced if I say that he has to run around collecting the money while someone else winds the organ.
      Many of us are disappointed that the Government have stepped back from dealing with the issue in the way that we had hoped. In their response to the Select Committee—in Cm 5141—they go over the top. In responding to a point about "Principle", a sentence begins with the word "However". It was obviously not written by my hon. Friend the Minister; he went to a good Scottish school and we were always told never to start a sentence with "however". I shall ignore that small point.
      The response to the Quadripartite Committee's report says that
      "the Government strongly believes that bringing the Committee into the export licensing process, regardless of the formal status of the Committee's recommendations to Ministers, would in practice be bound to blur this responsibility. The Government therefore remains of the view that, as a matter of principle, it would be wrong for Ministers to be required to consult Parliament before taking decisions in individual cases."
      The truth is that the Executive do not wish to share responsibilities with the legislature.
      4.45 pm
      The Government went on to identify several arguments. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) touched on confidentiality. Select Committees are consulted on a variety of matters. They are regularly consulted on a need-to-know basis on security, foreign affairs and defence. Cynics might say that hon. Members are put on a Committee only once they have received security clearance and dubious candidates are not successful, although I am not certain of that.
      On commercial confidentiality, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry takes evidence and is sometimes given sight of documents that are commercially sensitive. That privilege is not abused.
      Mr. Battle: Many applications resemble what in local government terms would be called outline planning permission. They are not detailed applications. Would not it be appropriate for outline plans to be considered by Committees? That would resolve many problems that are presented as obstacles to prior scrutiny.
      Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall return to in a moment.
      On confidentiality, the Intelligence and Security Committee comprises several hon. Members and representatives of the other place. It is a hybrid Committee, but it deals with matters of great sensitivity. At least two of the participating Departments in the export licence procedure are regularly involved in it. We could be precious and say that the Government's position is insulting to the integrity of hon. Members, but it would be better to explain that we are already involved in the process. There is no need to make a major change to our responsibilities.
      We heard that legal concerns are important and that we will create uncertainty for exporters. Any hon. Member who has been confronted by a business in their

      433
      constituency which is trying to get an export licence will know that they are not innocents abroad. Sometimes they do not prepare themselves as well as they might, but they are aware of the legal uncertainties. It is a bit rich for the Government to accuse us of adding to those.
      The other argument is that prior scrutiny will make subsequent scrutiny more difficult, but we would probably not need to give the matter further consideration. We also heard about the old sore of processing delays. That is plumbing new depths in civil service cynicism. If there is sensitivity or difficulty, the DTI et al will move with glacial speed. Weeks become months and months become years. A coup can be followed by a counter-coup, the bad guys become the good guys, and we are not sure whether our enemy's enemy is still our friend. Some of us were involved in defence debates when the late Alan Clark was the Minister who sold everything to everybody, although I accept that he did that at the highest possible price. We recognise the pre-Scott days. Tactics are available if people want to use them.
      The argument about resource implications is even worse than the argument about delays. I think it was a Victorian academic who promulgated a list of reasons for not doing what one does not want to do. I think that unripe time was the only cliché from the list.
      The Government are missing a serious opportunity. We hear much about the exclusiveness of the Executive, but the Executive now have an opportunity, on a sensitive subject, to share some power and influence with the House, the legislature. We are not demanding that the Executive consult. We are simply saying that they "may consult"; there is no obligation. We are not even saying that they should consult with the Quadripartite Committee; they could consult any of the Committees with the relevant expertise. New clause 6 would provide Ministers with the maximum possible flexibility. It is a very modest amendment.
      I would like to think that this discussion will continue. Although we rightly praise the Government for their openness and transparency in so many aspects of the export licensing process, it is becoming ever more apparent that there will always be sensitive issues. There are not many such issues; as we heard, on current reckoning, they number about 50. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, many of those issues can be addressed essentially as outline planning permissions, as applications about applications. For those reasons, I believe that the Government are missing an opportunity.
      Some of my colleagues on the Trade and Industry Committee and I have been nominated for the Quadripartite Committee. Some of us will be suggesting that one of the early items on the agenda should be to invite to the Committee assorted Secretaries of State and others, such as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to justify the nonsense that was given in the July reply and which I have been trying to highlight.
      Although I do not think that the issue is worth pressing to a vote now, I think that it will continue to engage the House. We have got our teeth into the issue and we are not going to let go. We also require much better arguments than the ones we received in the Government's
      434
      July reply, which was disappointing and unnecessarily heavy handed. We could have reached a better compromise and it would not have greatly undermined the Executive's authority. As we say about devolution, power shared is often power. and authority, enhanced. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message back to his colleagues in the Departments and Ministries. As I said, the issue will not go away.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: One of the points that the Minister may be missing is that it should be up to Parliament to decide whether an export licence should be granted for an item of national importance—I dare not mention the cow in formaldehyde again. If this Government or a future Government decide to export an item of national importance and they get it wrong, they will be held to account. However, if they allow a proper debate in the House on granting a licence, the House itself will have to decide whether to allow the item to go overseas. The House should be able to make such decisions, as the issue encompasses not only arms but technology, works of art and a plethora of other items for which you as a Minister—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a relative newcomer to the House, but he must use the correct parliamentary language.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Dual-purpose items are another aspect of the debate. Turkey, for example, has a licence to make Land Rover vehicles. Most people think that Land Rovers can do anything, but they may not appreciate that the vehicles have a dual purpose as a weapons base. If we had a problem with Turkey, how could we revoke that licence? Turkey is a NATO member and has many other ties to the United Kingdom. Would the Government be able to revoke its licence? The Minister may be able to sort out the issue, but I do not think that he can. I think that he will discover that the United Kingdom would he placed under enormous pressure by Land Rover and those using those vehicles to continue the licence. I believe that some of the new clauses in this group would provide for greater scrutiny in granting overseas licences. One cannot license a dual-purpose piece of kit in one way and then revoke the licence in another. For the House not to have the chance to scrutinise such matters is a great shame. We should be able to do so.
      Ann Clwyd: This afternoon, I have listened to a lot of sensible comment and heard a lot of nonsense as well. I do not see where the export of art comes into the Bill—perhaps I have missed something. HON. MEMBERS: "It is there". Oh is it? I find it strange that art comes into an arms export Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can explain.
      I rise in the spirit of assisting the Bill and the Minister. All of us who served on the Quadripartite Committee—we expect to do so in future—heard all the arguments over a period of months. With my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), I visited Sweden and the United States. We were less impressed by the Swedish system of

      435
      prior scrutiny than by the US system. Certain committees in the United States told us that they could pull the plug on a licence at any time, without fear of penalty—indeed, if they found that conditions in a certain country had changed, they could do so rapidly. That is what I am going to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister.
      For many years, I sat in the Chamber listening to arguments in support of the export of arms to Iraq. If the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) had been a Member of Parliament at the time, he would have been as frustrated as many of us here today were then. We knew that exporting arms to Iraq in the 1980s and through to 1991 was a ridiculous thing to do—everyone knew the political and human rights situation in that country. I strongly believe that if Parliament had been given the opportunity to vote on the export of those arms, they would never have been exported.
      Wisdom does not rest solely in Whitehall. My hon. Friend the Minister should see that our suggestion might serve him in future as a means of getting himself off the hook. All Governments make mistakes selling arms to certain countries—Labour Governments are no exception. Under the Conservative Government, the great scandal was the sale of arms to Iraq at a time when all informed Members knew that the regime could not and should not be sustained.
      Forty Back-Bench Members drawn from all three major parties served on the Quadripartite Committee, which encompassed four Committees, as the House knows. After months of careful examination and visits to two countries that operate a system of prior scrutiny, they concluded unanimously that it was both possible and highly desirable to establish a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny in this country. It is worth noting that the Quadripartite Committee included former Defence Ministers.
      Initially, we were disappointed by the negative response from the four Secretaries of State, but when the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), appeared before the Committee—I think it was at his last appearance—he said that the Government were listening and that there was an open door. He gave us the strong impression that the Government would support our recommendation. We took on board some of his concerns and objections and in March we offered a refined proposal to the Government. That is the background to the amendment.
      5 pm
      The introduction of prior scrutiny would enhance ministerial accountability and would improve the system of checks and balances in the arms export licensing regime. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) mentioned Indonesia. I was much involved in questioning the Conservative Government on the export of arms to Indonesia. They ignored human rights abuses that were taking place in East Timor, Jakarta, Aceh, Irian Jaya and many provinces of Indonesia. There was the attempt by East Timor to assert itself as a separate country.
      Despite the repeated assurances that were given to the UK Government over the years that UK--supplied equipment would not be used in East Timor, of course it was used. It was used in the water cannons that were used on the streets of Jakarta to spray the students who were demonstrating with red dye so that they could
      436
      subsequently be picked up by the military and the police. Hawk jets flew over Dili twice. They were used as part of the intimidation of the people of East Timor at a time when they were striving peacefully for independence.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, the Government continued to supply spare parts. I remember well a conversation with the then Foreign Secretary, when we asked what his reasons were. He said that he had legal opinion. We also had legal opinion, and the opinions did not coincide. We have never had sight of the then Foreign Secretary's legal opinion, as my hon. Friend said, not even in the Select Committee. We believe that that opinion could have been challenged. If it had gone to some form of judicial review, the Government would have been in a spot of bother.
      One of the powers of the United States is the ability to pull the plugs at any time. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that it is possible to revoke licences if circumstances change. However, would anyone in the House now be sending arms to Israel, for example? If Members had been asked whether they would agree to send arms to Israel, I do not believe that more than a handful would have agreed that it was a good idea. Nevertheless, two export licences were issued for components for combat helicopters and related technology to Israel in 1999–2000. Two open individual export licences are currently in force for the same equipment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil mentioned the objections that the Government had to prior scrutiny. The legal advice that we have had is clear. It is that there is no constitutional impediment to prevent Parliament legislating so as to give itself a role in scrutinising arms export licences. Sub-delegation of the decision-making function need not be an issue as long as explicit reference is made in the Bill to the fact that such a role would be advisory only. The wording in new clause 6 is careful. It makes it clear that the role will be advisory only.
      Much progress has been made in opening up the UK export licensing system to parliamentary and public oversight. However, it is entirely retrospective; it is taking place after licences have been granted. There is obviously a role for a parliamentary Committee to scrutinise export licensing decisions before they are granted so as to provide advice to Ministers in difficult cases.
      We are talking of only a few contentious licences, not 12,000. We are talking of perhaps 80 to 100 in a year, and perhaps even fewer. The Government spelt out their objections to the first report of the Quadripartite Committee, but they subsequently moved the goalposts. They objected to a certain aspect of the recommendations, but when we responded, the goalposts were moved again. Many of my hon. Friends have knocked the question of commercial confidentiality on the head. We are constantly shown commercially confidential material; it has not leaked from the Quadripartite Committee, for example. Representatives of the defence industry have admitted that commercial sensitivities typically concern pricing data and detailed technical specifications. Beyond requiring information on approximate value, where there are concerns about impacts on sustainable development, that type or level of information would be largely irrelevant to a Select Committee giving prior scrutiny to contentious arms licences.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil talked about commercial competitiveness, and my hon. Friend the Minister raised the possibility of a delay. Giving Parliament

      437
      an advisory role in reviewing licences would not delay the process beyond the target of 20 days per application by adding 10 days to processing. Applications for licences that are most likely to be of concern to Parliament already exceed the 20-day target. I am therefore afraid that the argument about delay must be knocked firmly on the head.
      If prior scrutiny causes undue delays, as some argue, as well as damage to the defence industry and harm to bilateral relations, why do the United States Government not feel that it is an issue? As I said earlier, the United States is the largest arms exporter in the world. Whatever the presidency, it is mindful of its defence industry, bilateral relations and operating efficiently. If prior scrutiny is not a problem for the United States or Sweden, I do not understand why it should be a problem for us. I hope that, in due course—perhaps even tonight—the Minister will clarify his reasons for believing that the United Kingdom is a special case.
      Mr. Lloyd: I, too, had not realised that the Bill controlled the export of artworks and was fascinated by the concept of dual-use Picassos. I was also fascinated by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) about the role of the royal family in export licensing. In this country, we are considering the role of our royal family in judging hospital architecture; perhaps that is a comment on the relative values of the Swedes and the British.
      New clause 6 goes to the heart of the debate about the relationship that we as a society want with the Executive through a democratically elected Parliament. As the Minister knows, I am one of a number of Members in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is another—who have engaged in the art of licensing. Of course, practical issues are involved, but we must consider whether prior scrutiny is desirable and helpful. I have enormous respect for the Minister, and urge him to consider the fact that Ministers themselves may be advantaged by that form of engagement with parliamentary colleagues. That point is profoundly important. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West will remember the lonely Tuesday nights and Wednesday mornings that he spent as a Minister; perhaps, at 3 am, he had a red box full of all manner of things and was under enormous pressure to issue or refuse export licences. Ministers are under genuine pressure.
      I shall comment briefly on the arguments against prior scrutiny. One of the issues is confidentiality, which is extremely important for Government. It is not the role of Government to breach confidentiality. It is vital that the position of trust assumed by Government is reflected by those in the parliamentary domain who engage in scrutiny. Ironically, in almost every case in which controversy has arisen, information was leaked into the public domain not by the Government, but often by aggrieved manufacturers with an interest in seeing the matter go forward.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil noted that through the Intelligence and Security Committee, we already entrust parliamentary colleagues to examine some of the most detailed and secret aspects of Government activity. We could replicate that level of trust by allowing a Committee of trusted Members of both Houses to engage in prior scrutiny. Confidentiality is not a problem that need detain us.
      438
      Delay is another issue that has been mentioned. I know from experience that when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, we were faced with an enormous backlog of licensing decisions from the previous Government, who had under-resourced that system which, to be brutally honest, may have operated a little more cavalierly in the near past. The strong improvement that the Labour Government made in the process by tightening controls had a knock-on effect. I pay tribute to those in the various Departments responsible, who faced extraordinary levels of work.
      Delays were rarely caused by Ministers, because they would have the relevant paperwork for a relatively short time. I see no reason, either in logic or in the process, why the same time frame would not allow a Select Committee to examine licence applications on their way to the Minister concerned. The problems are not insurmountable and are not a serious limitation on the viability of such scrutiny.
      Only a limited number of export licences are genuinely controversial or difficult. They can be difficult for Ministers even if they are not controversial, because they may not be widely known. I know that it would be greatly to the advantage of Ministers, who after all are politicians and represent the political system, to have the advice of trusted and senior colleagues. I have wrestled with such decisions myself and I have known how difficult it is to come to a firm conclusion, sometimes because complex information and uncertainties or unknowns are involved.
      In such circumstances, I would have greatly welcomed the opportunity for an exchange of information or an exchange of view with others who also recognised the need for public accountability. The one difference between a Minister and the civil service is that, in the end, a Minister must be prepared to account for every one of those decisions in this place and in the public domain. Parliamentary colleagues understand that, and it is not the role of the civil service to second-guess that job.
      I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give the matter serious consideration. I do not expect him to come to the Dispatch Box tonight and tell us that there has been a change of thinking. I am aware that the issue must also be considered by various members of the Cabinet. However, the argument will not go away. I am convinced that ultimately there will be prior scrutiny through the parliamentary system. That is desirable, and I believe that it will come. I ask my hon. Friend not to close the Government's mind to the matter, and to tell us that he recognises the force of the arguments that have been heard, which was recognised by the former Foreign Secretary. We must keep the debate firmly open. If it is not opened by the Government, it will be kept open by Members of Parliament.
      5.15 pm
      Nigel Griffiths: I should like to respond to a number of the points that have been raised. First, I shall deal with the issue of mercenaries. Seeking to control mercenaries would go significantly beyond the scope of the Bill, and it is not our intention to do so. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has received a response on that matter today from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the lead Department on that issue, and I hope that that will be satisfactory.

      439
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised a number of points and I shall touch on the most germane of them. Cultural exports and strategic export controls come under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. As we are replacing that Act, the Bill has to replace its export control powers in full and needs to cover both those categories. We have decided, mainly for reasons of clarity, that the annual report on cultural exports should be separate from the annual report on strategic export controls.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made a powerful speech from the heart, which I commend to hon. Members. Those hon. Members who have not dealt with arms control issues as Ministers—those who have can only ever be a small minority—do not realise the soul-searching and scrutiny that Ministers and civil servants put into the work. That includes those who are making assessments of diverted end use, inquiring into previous use, and going into the real detail of the licences. It is a difficult job, often done under great pressure at all stages.
      I am fortunate never to have found myself having time constraints; I have always been able to give due and detailed consideration to the licences. I know, however, that I come in at the end of a long process during which the licences have been scrutinised by colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. In defence of other Ministers before me, I do not believe that all Ministers took the view of our late colleague Alan Clark. Many Ministers from both parties have taken this issue very seriously.
      This gets to the heart of the reasons that the new clauses have been tabled. I have thought seriously about the new clauses, but I urge hon. Members to reject them. We are wrestling with the emotive issue of sending arms to countries that have been the subject of controversy, but which are not the subject of United Nations or European Union embargoes. In some cases, of course, the UK imposes its own embargoes, so we do not rule that out. As hon. Members have hinted, however, this can leave the market open for others with less scrupulous controls than ours to move into it. Those people would also not have a report such as this annual report, which has been commended in Europe as almost a showcase report on how to list the strategic controls and the licences granted. There are important issues here, and they impinge on some of the individual cases that have been raised. I know that my colleagues are aware of that, and I do not want to comment on them further.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, raised more doubts than l had had about the two regimes that had been commended to me, Sweden and America. I will not add to his comments on Sweden, but in America applications are notified only after a contract has been signed. Here, we advise exporters before they sign a contract as to the likelihood of their getting a licence. That is a useful addition.
      As my hon. Friend pointed out, in America only major contracts are covered. Using a telling phrase, he said that it was the small, nasty contracts that could be swept under the table. Certainly, small—possibly not nasty—contracts may require even more scrutiny. They may require
      440
      disproportionate—but that should not be taken literally!—scrutiny and other work on the part of those responsible for vetting licences.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently remind the Minister that he must face the Chair?
      Nigel Griffiths: I humbly apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      One of the complexities that caused us to reject the recommendation of the Quadripartite Committee is the fact that we would have to decide what threshold would catch the small, nasty contracts that my hon. Friend said the Americans did not catch. I have served on one of the most senior Select Committees, and I have seen the Clerk scrambling around to secure a quorum for a meeting to quiz top civil servants and others on billion-pound budgets. I fear that some £10,000 contracts that might be seen as controversial could go to what could be seen as a hotspot.
      Mr. Battle: I tend to want a world in which we would emulate those who formed Arsenal football club in 1886. They worked at the Woolwich arsenal. Each of them put in 6d to back the football club; their works factory has now shut down. I feel that if people did other things rather than making arms it would make for a better world.
      I also think that those in East Timor, for instance, might say, "As we form a new country and a new Government, we need the means to defend ourselves against a possible future engagement with Indonesia."
      I think that the problem here relates to the word "prior". I do not think that the real issue relates to Ministers going through red boxes late at night; I think that it arises at the other end of the process. The pressure is coming from the arms companies. I want them to think twice. I want them to think seriously about the whole process, and not put in speculative bids as they often do. Prior scrutiny would push the process a further stage back, and people would know where they were. I think that that could be done and would send a very healthy signal through the system.
      Nigel Griffiths: I am sure that the industry will note my hon. Friend's comments. I certainly have.
      Mr. O'Neill: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest, but he was not specific on one point. What would he expect to be the volume of work required? We have been given estimates of 40 to 50 cases, up to a maximum of about 100. Not all those cases would necessarily be referred at the Minister's discretion. Given the timing of such matters, it would probably be possible to arrange several meetings each year of a group that would examine them. I do not think that the volume would be as great as the Minister suggests, but I may have got it wrong. Perhaps the Minister could be a little more specific, as it seems that Government thinking has changed.
      Nigel Griffiths: I have no more up-to-date information than my hon. Friend.
      The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked about legal difficulties in the revoking of licences. There are no such difficulties where circumstances have changed significantly since the issuing of a licence. The difficulties

      441
      would arise if a country's circumstances had changed, or new and relevant information was available to the Government.
      Let me return to a point I made earlier. The annual report sets out the reasons for refusals and the statistics. The hon. Member for Twickenham raised that matter, too. On page 15, the report makes clear the cases where revocation took place, so it is clearly set out.
      I believe that the proposals that we have put before the House are the practical ones, and I urge the House not to press the other new clauses to a vote.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1

      EXPORT CONTROLS
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
      '() The power to impose export controls is subject to section (General restriction on purposes of control orders).'.— [Nigel Griffiths.]

    Clause 2

      TRANSFER CONTROLS
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
      '() The power to impose transfer controls is subject to section (General restriction on purposes of control orders).'.— [Nigel Griffiths.]

    Clause 3
      PURPOSES OF ORDERS UNDER SECTION 1(1) OR 2(1)
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 35, leave out Clause 3.— [Nigel Griffiths.]
    Clause 4

      CONTROLS ON PROVISION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OVERSEAS
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 35, leave out from "of' to end of line 40 and insert—
      'technical assistance controls in relation to technical assistance of any description.
      (2) For this purpose—
      "technical assistance controls", in relation to any technical assistance, means the prohibition or regulation of participation in the provision outside the United Kingdom of that technical assistance; and
      "technical assistance" means services which are provided or used, or which are capable of being used, in connection with the development, production or use of any goods or technology.
      (2A) Technical assistance may be described in the order wholly or partly by reference to the uses to which it (or the goods or technology in question) may be put.
      (2B) The power to impose technical assistance controls—

      (a) shall only be exercised for the purpose of imposing controls corresponding to or connected with—

      (i) any export controls or transfer controls imposed under section 1 or 2; or

      442

      (ii) any controls imposed by a directly applicable Community provision on the exportation of goods or the transfer of technology; and

      (b) is subject to section (General restriction on purposes of control orders).'.

      No. 5, in page 4, line 3, leave out from "of' to end of line 4 and insert "technical assistance".— [Nigel Griffiths.]

    Clause 5

      CONTROLS ON TRADE IN CONTROLLED GOODS
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 4, line 10, leave out "controlled".
      No. 7, in page 4, line 12, leave out "controlled".
      No. 8, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
      '() Goods may be described in the order wholly or partly by reference to the uses to which the goods, or any information recorded on or derived from them. may be put.
      () The power to impose trade controls—

      (a) shall only be exercised for the purpose of imposing controls corresponding to or connected with—

      (i) any export controls or transfer controls imposed under section 1 or 2; or

      (ii) any controls imposed by a directly applicable Community provision on the exportation of goods or the transfer of technology; and

      (b) is subject to section (General restriction on purposes of control orders).'.—[Nigel Griffiths.]

    Clause 7

      GUIDANCE
      Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 27, after "function;", insert—
      '(bb) the time necessary to process applications;'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 33, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
      '(3) Any published guidance relating to export licensing, which is capable of applying in relation to the exercise of functions under an order under section 1 or 2, shall be treated as guidance under this section.
      (4) The consolidated criteria relating to export licensing decisions announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State on 26th October 2000 shall be included in the guidance referred to in subsection (3).
      (5) Changes to any guidance issued under subsection (4) shall not take effect until laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
      (6) Changes to any guidance issued under subsections (I) or (2), or under subsection (3) which does not contain any guidance made by virtue of subsection (4), shall be laid before Parliament and published within 40 days.'.
      Mr. Key: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have companies great and small in their constituencies that produce goods for export, and some of them require export licences. Many hon. Members present today can tell their own tales of letters to Ministers, telephone calls, parliamentary questions and debates concerning delay in granting export licences to companies.
      We have heard some passion about the great companies in this country that do so much to create wealth, which is therefore taxed, from which we all benefit. We have heard

      443
      a lot of good sense. We have heard one or two over-the-top comments about the merchants of death—over the top in my view, anyhow. I suggest that: the hon. Gentleman who made that comment finds out how many people in his constituency who vote for him are involved in defence industries. Nevertheless, one of the perennial problems—the Minister and two former Ministers present have commented on it at some length—is the care that is taken in assessing the value and disbenefits of any export licence application.
      The officials who carry out the scrutiny before the decisions go to Ministers have themselves found that their departments have been understaffed and that extra burdens have been put on them. Under this Government, a new department was set up in the Foreign Office to secure a particular Foreign Office input to the ethical dimension. I am not arguing about that, but whatever mechanism Government create to handle the issue, it should be efficient and not unnecessarily disadvantage British industry where it is pursuing lawful objectives in the interests of this country and of their employees, our constituents.
      As long ago as 10 May 2001, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
      "what the (a) average and (b) maximum length of time taken to process export licences was in 2000."—[Official Report, 10 May 2001; Vol. 368, c. 305W.]
      The answer came back that in 2000 the mean length of time was 26.5 working days, the mode was 15 working days and the median was 17 working days. A lot of other statistics were given, but the basic message was, "Too long."
      My amendment is concerned with the fact that the Government have failed to introduce time limits in granting licences in this Bill, which provided a very good opportunity to do so. That is essential to help competition. It would mean that manufacturers could guarantee a time scale for the production and delivery of goods. The 20-day average causes anxiety to businesses, great and small. We heard some interesting ideas from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) about the equivalent of an outline planning permission being put in by some large companies to try it on with an export licence. That is not the norm; it is the exception.
      5.30 pm
      Many of the difficulties have arisen with small and medium-sized enterprises and, sometimes, very small family-based engineering companies in our constituencies. For example, I learned recently of a small family-run civil engineering company near Manchester. It specialises in high-quality, low-volume production of orders made to high specifications. Some of its orders are involved in defence. For example, it makes parts of a periscope for tanks as well as all sorts of bits and pieces, such as fins, for aircraft and, on occasion, missiles.
      Anyone who knows anything about the engineering industry knows that, although there are the big boys, most of the work takes place in small firms in our constituencies that might employ only a dozen or so highly skilled engineers. They are the hardest hit by delays in export licensing.
      That particular company in the north-west was approached to make a piece of equipment. It quoted, got the order and immediately put in a licence application.
      444
      It went ahead, produced the goods and finished production on time but could not release them and so lost the order. It had done the work, but because three Departments could not process the application in time, it lost the order and was not paid.
      On 9 July this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked a question of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He congratulated her on her appointment and asked what she would do about the issue of the 20 working days. In a straightforward answer she said:
      "Like him, I am worried about the delays and our failure to meet the target for dealing with all the applications on time. However, I am sure that he acknowledges that some of the applications raise complex and difficult issues on which a careful judgment must be made."— [Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 543–44.]
      We all understand that; it is inevitable. However, many issues are not complex. For example, a company in my constituency has made marine flares for the best part of half a century. It had a repeat order from Turkey—a member of NATO. It lost the order. It did not get the export licence in time because someone had decided that they suddenly did not want Turkey to receive flares any more. It was not even a new order. That is another frustrating example. There are many more, but I will not bore the House.
      It is important to flag up this problem and for the Opposition to try to be constructive. Let us put target times in the Bill to encourage industry and give Ministers and officials an extra incentive. It is not that Ministers are being idle, not doing their boxes or failing to do their duty. I know what it is like; I have been there too. The boxes pile up and woe betide anyone who does not get them back. I admire enormously colleagues who tell their private secretaries that they are not taking boxes home. There are some who do that, but I never managed it. At 7.15 every Saturday morning the boxes arrived, never fewer than three, often as many as five, and that was the weekend gone. We know the feeling. It is not that Ministers or officials are failing to do their jobs properly but the system needs more discipline if we are not to disadvantage British companies. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce such discipline.
      The Secretary of State said that she would do everything possible to speed up decision making, but that the Government would not risk making wrong decisions. I agree that they should not risk that. I shall table a written question in a few minutes asking what initiatives the Export Control Organisation is taking to reduce the processing time of licence applications because that touches on the livelihoods of some 400,000 people in this country. If the Government's objectives for the success of British industry are to be realised, export licensing must be an important part of that process. That is why I encourage the Government, through amendment No. 28, to consider inserting a specific sub-paragraph on the time necessary to process applications.
      Dr. Cable: I should like to say a few words on amendment No. 35, which is on a theme rather different from that of amendment No. 28. It tries to bring together the two streams of argument current throughout this afternoon's debate. One is that there should be a new way of tackling the issue of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Opposition Members accept that the Government's business must be done and that small procedural questions

      445
      must be dealt with speedily. That is why in many cases the lowest level of parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate. However, in other cases, stricter parliamentary scrutiny is required.
      That leads me to the second theme: sustainable development. A successor Minister might wish to change the export criteria, and that should be taken seriously and subject to proper scrutiny. Now that the Minister has had an hour or so to cool down, he might accept that his part in that debate was not his finest hour in Parliament. Perhaps he will respond, therefore, to our helpful suggestion in the amendment that he tackle the problem, which is recognised on both sides of the House, in a different way. We suggest that a distinction should be drawn between narrow procedural problems, which are properly dealt with by the most limited form of parliamentary scrutiny, and changes to the consolidated criteria, which are very important and require proper parliamentary oversight.
      I remind the Minister of his comments in the earlier debate on sustainable development that might make him think again about facilitating a separate bite of the cherry and providing a different way of safeguarding parliamentary scrutiny. He said that sustainable development was not the only exception to the consolidated criteria that he had not included in the schedule. I endeavoured to intervene to tell him—he was not willing to accept the point—that when he first introduced the Bill, he explained that the concept of diversion had not been included because it was a totally different idea. In fact, that was not a good reason for excluding sustainable development, which is conceptually very similar to issues such as internal repression. When he reflects on that, he will realise that his arguments were weak.
      A difficulty was also made of the fact that there are different ways of interpreting sustainable development. I have since in the past hour had an opportunity to check the way in which different Departments deal with the matter. One Department has several definitions, all of which are consistent and relate to the Brundtland criteria. I mention those points because, when the Government reflect on the day's work, I think that they will realise that they did not handle the matter well. There are other ways of safeguarding the criteria from future changes by any Minister who might wish, perhaps capriciously, to ignore the will of Parliament. By splitting the guidance criteria into two, we have suggested a neat legislative way of doing so.
      Mr. Peter Luff: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak briefly on an issue that has been of some concern to me in the past in two capacities, one more recent than the other. In the 1980s, I had the privilege of being a special adviser at the DTI. I formed a deep admiration for the work of its officials, but felt that they were generally more concerned with policy than its implementation. Inventing a new policy is a wonderful thing, requiring a great deal of intellectual exercise and agility. Going through the rather dreary process of making sure it works in practice is slightly less appealing.
      When it came to export licensing, there was perhaps a tendency to relegate the importance of that part of the Department's work. What my hon. Friend the Member for
      446
      Salisbury (Mr. Key) had to say was very important, as it reminds officials that it is as important to deliver a policy speedily as it is to invent a marvellous policy. I commend what he said and hope that the Government will reflect that it would do no harm to accept this important amendment.
      More recently, I had experience of this problem as a constituency Member. It was a particularly strange occurrence. A company in my constituency that had been actively encouraged by the DTI to export to Pakistan—and had received great assistance from the export promotion wing of the Department, for which it was grateful—then found that the export of the piece of machinery concerned was frustrated by the export licensing regulations. The machinery was impounded at the dock and it took weeks and weeks for the Department to make a decision on the granting of the licence.
      We had a bizarre situation, in which the company had been encouraged to export a product by one part of the Department but the export of that piece of kit was frustrated by another part of the Department. Eventually, the Department decided that it should not be exported at all, so all the work of the export promotion part of the DTI was entirely wasted. Now, the same company is being encouraged by the Department to export the same kit to China. Will it get an export licence in reasonable time for the export of that piece of kit? It is odd to see a Government who boast of joined-up government not being able to join up the work of one Department of State.
      It would be a generous and wise act to accept the amendment to ensure that there was some pressure on the export licensing function of the Department to act speedily in the interests of British business.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and amendment No. 28, which would make a vital contribution not only to the efficient working of the system, but to reassuring companies up and down the country. Many of these companies are small. They are not necessarily located in the major centres of defence manufacturing, but in constituencies across the country. Their concerns ought to be taken into account.
      I cannot see the harm in adding to the Bill this modest amendment. It is not specific in terms of the number of days within which the Department should make a decision, but it puts in the Bill the need to provide a timetable as guidance to officials. That would provide industry with a degree of certainty. Despite being, generally speaking, favourably disposed towards the Bill, industry sees an element of uncertainty in it. Industry does not like uncertainty; it likes to be certain about the conditions that apply to its operations.
      The amendment would send out to industry a strong signal that the Government understand their concern that they must expeditiously handle applications for defence export licences. It is in the Government's own interests to accede to my hon. Friend's suggestion. It would be beneficial to them not only in their relations with industry but from a macro-economic point of view because, as the Minister—and I believe the House—knows, I believe strongly in defence exports. They are vital to the success of Britain's aerospace and defence manufacturing industry, which employs 350,000 people, and absolutely essential to ensure economies of scale in our

      447
      manufacturing for our own forces. Therefore, anything that we do to enhance those exports, within a system of licensing, must be good news for Great Britain generally.
      5.45 pm
      Therefore it is important, at a macro-level, that we should be perfectly clear in our mind of the merits of including, on the face of the Bill, guidance to impose on the Government an obligation to specify conditions regarding the time scale for the granting of licences.
      I shall not cite any specific instances, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) informed the House earlier in the year of a case in his constituency, and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Salisbury have told the House of cases in their constituencies. I am sure that the Minister knows that there are many other cases around the country. I hope that when he responds to the debate he will seize the opportunity to tell the House that he accepts the amendment—there is still an off-chance that he might, but I suspect not. I hope that, in the event that he does not do so, he will take the opportunity to tell the House, and through the House British industry, that the Government do understand that if the system of licensing is to work, they must ensure that departmental officials take seriously the need to handle these export licence applications expeditiously, because if they do not, they will lose British business its export markets.
      Finally, I shall refer to some comments by the Defence Manufacturers Association which, as the Minister knows, represents the smaller businesses in the defence manufacturing field. In a submission at the time of Second Reading, it said:
      "A delicate balance must be achieved between the introduction of controls which are so vague as to be ineffective and easily circumvented by unscrupulous proliferators, and controls which are so stringent as to strangle UK Industry and make exporting by responsible firms almost impossible. Already we are aware of a number of companies who feel that the situation on export controls in the UK is so unhelpful and obstructive that they are either getting out of the business altogether or talking of doing so."
      I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the message from Her Majesty's Government tonight is, "We recognise that in the past there have been delays. You can take it from us that we will give this undertaking to the House, and to industries across the country: we will ensure that these applications are handled expeditiously, and that when a company says that if it does not get a decision within the next 48 hours it will lose the order, Ministers will ensure that action is taken to ensure that that company does not lose the order."
      Mr. Mark Hendrick: I also represent a constituency where thousands of workers work in the defence industry, and I also am keen to see that many of the brilliant aircraft that are produced in and around my constituency are exported to many other countries. Is the hon. Gentleman assuming that if a time limit—a deadline—is set for the Department to determine a licensing application, the outcome will be more likely to be positive than negative? It would appear to me that some civil servants—and Ministers—may err on the side
      448
      of caution when an attempt is made to accelerate the decision-making process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rigour may be more important than speed?
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which enabled me to adjust my dress to be appropriately attired for the Chamber.
      Mr. Luff: For the record, I assure the House that the article of dress to which my hon. Friend referred is the poppy in his lapel.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. My poppy fell off earlier when I was visiting the field of remembrance.
      Mr. Key: I always carry a spare.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend would make a marvellous Minister for defence procurement, as he always carries a spare. I shall convey that message to those involved in exercise Saif Sareea 2.
      The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) makes a valid point. I am not seeking to alter decisions, but I noted earlier that industry prefers certainty. The House has heard that export orders have been lost because of delays in Government decision making. Business wants decisions to be made quickly so that orders are not lost. It is no good for a Minister to come along 10 days after an order has been lost and say that an export licence has been approved. Indeed, companies could reap an advantage if they knew at the outset that they were not going to get export licences for particular contracts. They would not then waste their time trying to pursue a contract.
      The amendment does not specify a time limit on the consideration of applications. The power would be permissive in that, if the amendment were accepted, the Bill would state that a Minister "may" issue guidance with regard to the time scale for applications. That is a modest and fair way to proceed.
      Nigel Griffiths: Amendments Nos. 28 and 35 relate to the guidance to be published under clause 7, and I shall explain why neither is appropriate. First, however, it may be true that civil servants were undervalued when the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) was a special adviser at the Department, but I assure him that no one values civil servants more than I do.
      Mr. Luff: There is no question—civil servants were not undervalued at that time. I hope that the Minister heard me praise their talents and abilities.
      Nigel Griffiths: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to put the record straight. I assure him, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and other hon. Members that there has been an improvement in the delivery of the service. More of the 20-working-day targets are being met now than in the recent past, and that shows that the Government take the issue seriously.
      Amendment No. 28 would provide for the publication of guidance about the time necessary to process applications under clause 7. That publication would not be mandatory, so I am pleased to tell the House that it is

      449
      possible to publish such guidance under clause 7. The Government already publish targets for processing standard individual export licence applications.
      The amendment, however, raises important issues to do with the time taken to process licence applications. The Government recognise the difficulty that any delay in processing an individual export licence application can cause the exporter concerned. We aim to ensure that the controls are applied efficiently and impose minimum burdens, but the objective of giving every applicant a decision as quickly as possible cannot outweigh the need to give every application careful assessment against the relevant criteria. That can take time, especially if the application is particularly complicated or if there are concerns about the destinations involved. In an uncertain world, the international status of a destination country can change overnight, and what was an acceptable export last time may thus cease to be acceptable.
      The Government are working hard to reduce the time taken to assess export licence applications. We have set demanding targets for processing standard individual export licence applications. In most cases, it is necessary for such applications to be circulated to other Government Departments. Our aim is to provide a substantive response to 70 per cent. of applicants within 20 working days.
      Those targets are set out in a service and performance code, which is published by the Department's export control organisation. Information on performance against those targets is already published in the Government's annual reports on strategic export controls.
      Amendment No. 28 is not practical, and I assure the House that the Government are doing all that they can to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the licensing system.
      Amendment No. 35 would do two things. Proposed new subsection (3) would provide that all guidance published relating to the exercise of licensing functions for export or transfer controls would constitute guidance under clause 7. Proposed new subsection (6) would require all such guidance to be laid before Parliament and published within 40 days. In effect, any guidance on export licensing would have to be laid before Parliament and published within 40 days. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be obliged to lay before Parliament guidance issued under clause 7.
      Let me outline why we do not consider it sensible that all guidance, including practical guidance on procedure, should have to be laid before Parliament. The Export Control Organisation publishes on its website a range of guidance for exporters, which is updated constantly—if necessary, on a daily basis. To lay that material before Parliament every time it was updated or changed would unnecessarily overburden the procedures for laying documents before Parliament. That would be unnecessary, because that material is accessible to all Members and the public on the DTI's website or on request from the Export Control Organisation. Moreover, in the Government's view, it would be inappropriate.
      We believe that clause 7 should be used to lay before Parliament key guidance documents—for example, where new international commitments have been entered into—and, of course, the consolidated criteria. Proposed new
      450
      subsections (4) and (5) would require that changes could only be made to the consolidated criteria with Parliament's approval.
      The House will not deny the Government credit for making public and transparent the criteria against which licence applications are assessed. We have gone further, pressing the EU to adopt a similar code of conduct for arms exports to ensure that common standards apply across the EU. No one is in any doubt about the importance that we attach to the existence of the consolidated criteria and the EU code, and the Bill will, for the first time, make reference to the criteria in legislation. The consolidated criteria are based predominantly on that code of conduct.
      It is quite proper to obtain parliamentary approval for new legislation, but this matter does not require new legislation to be made. If changes to the criteria were made, the Government would, of course, announce them. Parliament or parliamentary Committees could consider any change in the usual way, but it would not be appropriate for such changes to be subject to formal parliamentary scrutiny of the kind that applies to new legislation. In view of the explanations that I have given, I invite the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Key: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I believe that the message has been taken, and it will be transmitted around Whitehall, no doubt. In good faith, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      ANNUAL REPORTS
      Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament in respect of each year—

      (a) a report on the operation during the year of any order under section 1 so far as relating to the export of objects of cultural interest; and

      (b) a report on other matters relating to the operation of this Act (and any order made under it) during the year.

      (2) A report required by subsection (1) shall be laid as soon as practicable after the end of the year to which it relates.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—
      ()Such reports shall list the other member countries of the European Union and shall show in respect of each such member country any information known to the Secretary of State regarding the granting of a licence within that country in respect of an essentially identical transaction refused or regulated within the United Kingdom.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 11 and 27.
      Nigel Griffiths: I shall explain why Government amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 27 are necessary. I shall also explain why amendment No. 29 should not be pressed to a Division.
      Under Government amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 27, we simply seek to ensure that the current practice of publishing separate annual reports on cultural and strategic export controls can continue after the Bill comes into force—an issue to which I referred earlier. At present. the DTI, Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office produce the annual report on strategic export controls. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport produces a separate report on exports of objects of cultural interest.
      Given that the audiences for those two reports are likely to be different, it makes sense to publish them separately. Separate publication also ensures that the cost to members of the public of obtaining the information in which they are interested will be kept to a minimum; and we ensure that the annual report on strategic exports is available free from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.
      Under amendment No. 29, an obligation would be imposed on the Secretary of State to publish information on decisions by other EU member states to grant licences for essentially identical transactions refused or regulated by the United Kingdom in the Government's annual reports on strategic export controls. We make every effort, including through the exchange of information on licensing decisions, to promote a multilateral approach to export control. We promote harmonisation between our partners in the European Union and in the international non-proliferation regimes.
      6 pm
      Before any EU member states grants a licence that has been denied by another member state or states for an essentially identical transaction in the last three years, it is required first to consult any member state that issued the denial notification under the provisions of the EU code of conduct on arms exports. lf, following the consultation, the member state nevertheless decides to grant a licence, it will notify the member state or states issuing the denial notification, giving detailed explanation of its reasoning.
      The EU code stipulates that such exchanges between member states are to be treated as confidential and are not to be used for commercial advantage. The Government intend to observe that confidentiality in dealing with denial notifications and consultations to ensure that the code can continue to be the basis of free exchanges of information between member states. For that reason, the Government oppose the amendment.
      The EU already publishes information on the number of licences issued, denial notifications, and bilateral and multilateral consultations initiated in the annual report on the EU code of conduct for arms exports. Thus information that can be put in the public domain is already put in the public domain at EU level.
      At the same time, the Government continue to urge all member states to match the benchmarks for transparency in arms exports that we have already set out in our annual reports on strategic export controls. The decision to transfer or deny the transfer of any item is a matter of
      452
      national discretion, and the Government recognise that there are differences between member states' policies towards certain countries, as reflected by the existence of national embargoes or other restrictions.
      In view of the explanations that I have given, I invite Members to support amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 27. I ask those who tabled amendment No. 29 not to press it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
      ' "control order" means an order under section 1(1), 2(1), 4(1) or 5(1);'.
      No. 11, in page 6, line 8, at end insert—
      ' "objects of cultural interest" includes objects of historical or scientific interest;'.
      No. 12, in page 6, line 9, at end insert—
      ' "technical assistance" and "technical assistance controls" have the meanings given in section 4(2);'.
      No. 13, in page 6, line 10, at end insert—
      ' "trade controls" has the meaning given in section 5(2);'.
      No. 14, in page 6, line 16, leave out subsections (2) to (5).—[Mr. Pearson.]

    Clause 11

      ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 15, in page 7, line 4, leave out—
      'an order under section 1 or 2'
      and insert "a control order".
      No. 16, in page 7, line 5, leave out "3(2)" and insert—
      '(General restriction on purposes of control orders) (2)'.
      No. 17, in page 7, line 16, leave out "or 2" and insert "2, 4 or 5".
      No. 18, in page 7, line 17, leave out "3(2)" and insert "
      '(General restriction on purposes of control orders) (2)'.
      No. 19, in page 7, line 18, leave out "4, 5 or".— [Mr. Pearson.]

    Schedule

      PURPOSES FOR MAKING ORDERS UNDER SECTION 1(1) OR 2(1)
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 9, line 3, leave out paragraph 1.
      No. 21, in page 9, line 5, leave out "An" and insert "A control".
      No. 22, in page 9, line 7, leave out "An" and insert "A control".
      No. 23, in page 9, leave out lines 13 to 26 and insert—
      '4 An order may be made for the purpose of imposing export controls in relation to goods of any description if it appears to the Secretary of State when the order is made that there is a risk that exportation of such goods might have a relevant consequence.
      4A An order may be made for the purpose of imposing transfer controls in relation to technology of any description if it appears to the Secretary of State when the order is made that there is a risk that transfer of such technology might have a relevant consequence.
      4B An order may be made for the purpose of imposing technical assistance controls in relation to technical assistance of any description if it appears to the Secretary of State when the order is made that there is a risk that the provision outside the United Kingdom of such assistance might have a relevant consequence.
      An order may be made for the purpose of imposing trade controls in relation to goods of any description if it appears to the Secretary of State when the order is made that there is a risk that carrying out the activities to be controlled in relation to such goods might have a relevant consequence.
      4D(1) For the purposes of this Schedule a relevant consequence, in relation to any activity, is a consequence (direct or indirect) of a kind mentioned in the following Table.'.
      No. 24, in page 10, line 2, leave out from beginning of line to "the" in line 3 and insert—
      'The carrying out anywhere in the world of acts which facilitate'.
      No. 25, in page 10, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
      'The carrying out anywhere in the world of (or of acts which facilitate)—'.— [Mr.Pearson.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 10, line 11, at end insert—
      E An adverse effect on the sustainable development of the country to which the goods were exported, or the technology was transferred.'.—[Dr.Cable.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 237.

      Division No. 52]

      [6.2 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Amess, David

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Baron, John

      Key, Robert

      Barrett, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Boswell, Tim

      Lamb, Norman

      Brady, Graham

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Laws, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Letwin, Oliver

      Butterfill, John

      Lewis. Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cameron, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cash, William

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chope, Christopher

      Luff, Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      (Rushcliffe)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Moore, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Doughty, Sue

      Ottaway, Richard

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Paice, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Price, Adam

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Prisk, Mark

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Garnier, Edward

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Rendel, David

      Gillan. Mrs Cheryl

      Robathan, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Grayling, Chris

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spring, Richard

      Heath, David

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hoban, Mark

      Syms, Robert

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Holmes, Paul

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      454

      Weir, Michael

      Wishart, Pete

      Whittingdale, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Willis, Phil

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Wilshire, David

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Ainger, Nick

      Edwards, Huw

      Alexander, Douglas

      Efford, Clive

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ennis, Jeff

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Farrelly, Paul

      Austin, John

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Baird, Vera

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Banks, Tony

      Flint, Caroline

      Barnes, Harry

      Flynn, Paul

      Battle, John

      Follett, Barbara

      Beard, Nigel

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Berry, Roger

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Best, Harold

      Galloway, George

      Betts, Clive

      Galloway, George

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Gardiner, Barry

      Blizzard, Bob

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Borrow, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bryant, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Grogan, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Burnham, Andy

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Casale, Roger

      Havard, Dai

      Caton, Martin

      Healey, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chaytor, David

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clapham, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heyes, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hope, Phil

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corston, Jean

      Hurst, Alan

      Cousins, Jim

      Hurst, Alan

      Cox, Tom

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cranston, Ross

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Joyce, Eric

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      David, Wayne

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kidney, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dismore, Andrew

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lepper, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Linton, Martin

      455

      Lloyd, Tony

      Robertson, John

      Love, Andrew

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Luke, Iain

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lyons, John

      Ross, Ernie

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roy, Frank

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCafferty, Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ryan, Joan

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonnell, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDougall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McFall, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Soley, Clive

      Mallaber, Judy

      Southworth, Helen

      Mann, John

      Squire, Rachel

      Marris, Rob

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stringer, Graham

      Merron, Gillian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Miliband, David

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Miller, Andrew

      Timms, Stephen

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Moffatt, Laura

      Todd, Mark

      Moran, Margaret

      Touhig, Don

      Morgan, Julie

      Trickett, Jon

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mountford, Kali

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mullin, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tynan, Bill

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Walley, Ms Joan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Watson, Tom

      O'Neill, Martin

      Watts, David

      Organ, Diana

      White, Brian

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pearson, Ian

      Wills, Michael

      Pickthall, Colin

      Winnick, David

      Pike, Peter

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Plaskitt, James

      Wood, Mike

      Pollard, Kerry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pond, Chris

      Woolas, Phil

      Pound, Stephen

      Worthington, Tony

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rapson, Syd

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Mr. John Heppell.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 10, line 13, leave out from beginning of line to "acts" in line 14 and insert—
      'The carrying out anywhere in the world of (or of acts which facilitate)'.
      No. 27, in page 10. line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (2).— [Mr. Pearson.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.17 pm
      Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I thank hon. Members for the important contributions they have made to this vital Bill, not only on Report but on Second Reading and in Committee. Those who have
      456
      participated in the debates have provided thorough and useful scrutiny of the Bill's provisions—indeed, so useful has the scrutiny been that it has informed the amendments that have just been made.
      The Bill is the result of years of intensive work. Current export control powers were introduced more than 60 years ago. I shall outline the main advances shortly. The Bill is the product of an open and consultative approach, which I have every intention of continuing. The events of 11 September mean that there is now an even greater need for new controls on arms to be passed by Parliament. While work continues on new emergency legislation in the wake of events in America, the Bill plays an important part in strengthening and modernising the powers available to us to control the arms trade.
      Whatever the technical details, we should never lose sight of the bigger picture, especially the humanitarian objective. The Bill is about controls on lethal weapons. There is, regrettably, too much evidence of what such weapons can do. which is why we are working with like-minded nations to reinforce and extend international counter-proliferation efforts. The Bill will make a significant contribution to that work.
      One of the most important improvements is that the Bill provides for proper parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. As well as negative resolution procedures, the Bill provides for both draft and delayed affirmative resolution procedures. It is worth remembering that the Act it will replace makes no provision at all for parliamentary scrutiny.
      As well as replacing existing powers to control exports, the Bill will modernise our controls and provide powers to control the electronic transfer of relevant technology. It is essential that the controls that apply to exports should apply also to technology that may be communicated by telephone, fax or e-mail. The House will welcome the new power to allow the Government to bring controls on military technology into line with those on dual-use technology.
      An equal welcome has been given to the new power to control the provision of technical assistance overseas. We intend to use the power to implement the EU joint action, which relates to controls on technical assistance.
      Yet another widely welcomed measure allows us to control trafficking and brokering in arms. For the first time, the UK Government will have a comprehensive power that will allow them to introduce controls on UK involvement in trade between overseas countries in goods that are subject to export controls.
      These measures will allow us to prohibit UK involvement in the illicit supply of weapons to regions of conflict. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that UK arms manufacturers that are at pains to comply with our export controls regime are not undermined by unscrupulous foreign agents and foreign companies. That is why the Government will continue to press for action to be taken at an international level.
      We shall continue to press for international embargoes to be imposed on countries and regions of conflict. That is the best way to stop the supply of arms to those regions. We have supported, and we shall continue to support, efforts within the EU to secure a political commitment from all member states to introduce controls on arms trafficking and brokering. I am advised that such a commitment is imminent.
      The Bill will also ensure greater transparency in decision making by setting out in the schedule the purposes for which export controls may be imposed. It will therefore be clear to all concerned exactly what the statutory parameters for imposing controls are. The Bill also provides for the publication of guidance about licensing decisions, and requires such guidance to be taken into account in licensing decisions.
      The major improvement in transparency is backed for the first time by a statutory requirement on Government to produce annual reports on strategic export controls, and a separate annual report on items of cultural interest. The NGO Saferworld has said of our annual reports on strategic export controls that they
      "currently stand as the most transparent reports published by any European country, and offer a potential template for best practice throughout the EU."
      The annual reports are instrumental in enabling the Government to be held to account for their decisions. It is right that future Governments will be required to continue to report to Parliament annually.
      There is no question but that the Bill will transform the UK's export control regime. It provides a new framework that allows for the introduction of an effective and comprehensive new set of export controls. I commend the Bill to the House.
      6.22 pm
      Mr. John Whittingdale: It has been a long haul to get where we are today. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the many Members who have contributed to the Bill's evolution, not least the members of the four Select Committees that came together to form the Quadripartite Committee.
      I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page)—they have not contributed to our debates today—for the work that they did on the Bill before they were substituted at half time, as it were, by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
      The Bill has had the longest gestation period of almost any Bill in recent years. The Scott report, which gave rise to the Bill, was published in February 1996, five and a half years ago. The Conservative Government accepted the report's recommendations and immediately issued a consultation document. The Labour party's manifesto in 1997 gave a firm pledge to take action. That was followed by the publication of the White Paper in 1998. Yet after that the Government sat on their hands, so it has taken three years for the Bill finally to be introduced. That is all the more remarkable given the fulminations of the current Leader of the House back in 1996 at the time of the Scott report. Yet when he was in a position to influence the timing of legislation, he and the Government allowed the matter to drift disgracefully.
      Even now, we are merely at the end of the beginning. There can be little doubt, especially after this afternoon's debate, that there is still a great deal more work to be done when the Bill is considered in another place. Nevertheless, I do not wish to be too churlish; I recognise that the Bill will bring transparency and openness, which were previously lacking, and I welcome that. It deals with difficult questions.
      458
      Although the control of the export of goods related to armaments is clearly important, it is not always easy. I shall provide a brief illustration. A few years ago, when I was working for the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, I accompanied her on a regional visit. We were returning to London from a Royal Air Force station, and had to wait for a short period while the plane was being prepared. The commanding officer of the station asked if we would be interested in seeing something, and took us to a disused hangar on the periphery of the base, where there were a large number of steel cylinders. They were in fact the Iraqi supergun but, even after I was told, that was not obvious. They may still be there for all I know.
      Opposition Members welcome the Bill, but our welcome is qualified. As happens all too often, the Government have decided that most of the legislative detail will be left to secondary legislation, of which we have seen only draft orders at a late stage during discussion of the Bill. It will be difficult to judge the Bill's impact on British industry and commerce until we see those orders, which will be published after the Bill has become law. That is a bad principle for any Government to follow.
      On Second Reading on 9 July, we made it clear that we believe that the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 is inadequate, inappropriate and ripe for revision. However, what we have in its place is effectively no more than an enabling measure. Neither the Government nor British industry or its customers know precisely how the Bill will work. The Quadripartite Committee, which brought together the Defence Committee and the Select Committees on Foreign Affairs, on International Development and on Trade and Industry, recommended that the Government publish draft secondary legislation before Second Reading. In the event, the dummy orders, four of them stretching to nearly sixty pages, were first seen by members of the Standing Committee when they were published in October, halfway through their deliberations. That is a travesty of which the Government have every reason to be ashamed.
      At the heart of the Bill lies the schedule which, for the first time, sets out in statute the purposes for which the Government can impose export controls. That brings welcome additional transparency, but the Bill also allows the Government to change the schedule simply by order without the need for further primary legislation. What is more, the Government can override the provisions of the schedule and impose export controls outside those provisions, again simply by means of secondary legislation. That was rightly criticised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the other place.
      In their consultation document on the Bill, the Government used weasel words:
      "The negative procedure would provide Parliament with the opportunity to debate and vote on secondary legislation where appropriate"
      For those unfamiliar with the workings of this place, that may well sound a sensible compromise. But as anyone who works here knows, it is not the reality of the situation. Parliament does not decide whether to debate a negative resolution: the Government do. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said on Second Reading,
      "If the Government do not want a debate, there will not he one."— [Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 552.

      459
      We have rightly spent time this afternoon seeking to persuade the Government to change their mind. Lord Scott made it plain in his evidence to the Quadripartite Committee that he would prefer the affirmative resolution procedure to be used. The negative resolution procedure is not necessarily restricted to technical and uncontroversial orders, as the Government have tried to claim. Some of the orders that have already been laid before Parliament raise issues deserving examination. Yet at every turn, the Government have sought to resist the greater involvement of Parliament in a way that those concerned with improving the accountability of Ministers and the scrutiny of Government decisions will find difficult to understand.
      When the dummy orders finally arrived on the desks of the members of the Standing Committee and were taken off the internet by British industry, the Government tried to justify their methods in the accompanying notes published at the time. The Government claimed that the export control provisions of the dummy orders represented a consolidation and a rationalisation of controls that were already in force; that the operation and enforcement of certain controls on the electronic transfer of dual-use technology were already contained in statutory instruments; that the dummy order includes provisions on the purpose for which information held by the Secretary of State may be disclosed; and that the new legislation simply codified existing practice.
      The dummy orders increased the maximum penalty from seven years to 10 years, both under our national legislation and for offences under directly applicable European Community legislation. These are not matters of technicality. They raise hugely significant issues, yet the House is expected to believe that they will be dealt with adequately by statutory instruments and a short debate Upstairs.
      One of the other main issues that has occupied our attention this afternoon has been the strange omission from the Bill of any reference to sustainable development. As has already been pointed out, in the consultation paper on the draft legislation, which was published in March this year, the schedule to the draft Bill contained in the table a section headed "Sustainable Development", which made it clear that the Government intended to take into consideration in granting licences a serious adverse effect on the economy of any country, or the potential for sustainable economic development in a country.
      In the first paragraph of her speech on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
      "We shall not ignore our international responsibilities: to reduce poverty, promote sustainable development and reduce conflict
      That is what the Export Control Bill is about."— [Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 542.]
      Yet that is precisely what the Bill is not about, as the references in the draft Bill were subsequently removed. That absence from the Bill has caused concern to a number of NGOs and to a large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House, as has been evident this afternoon.
      Nigel Griffiths: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the arms manufacturers asked for such a provision to be put in the Bill?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I do not believe that the arms manufacturers have made such a request, but it is the
      460
      House, rather than the arms manufacturers, that wishes to determine the contents of the Bill. There are serious concerns that need to be addressed.
      The Minister has claimed throughout our proceedings this afternoon that sustainable development is a criterion by which export licences can be judged, as set out in the EU code of conduct. He argued that it is therefore unnecessary to specify sustainable development as a criterion in the schedule to the Bill. However, he has plainly failed to explain why, if it is possible to use the criterion contained in the EU code of conduct, it cannot also be contained in the schedule. His explanations on that point have been profoundly unconvincing. For that reason, we supported amendment No. 39.
      The Bill will have a considerable impact on a key sector of British industry. Not only is the United Kingdom's the fourth largest economy in the world, but we remain a major international manufacturing and trading nation, and our defence manufacturing industry is second only to that of the United States of America. It employs some 350,000 people and there can hardly be a single hon. Member whose constituency does not contain some defence-related businesses.
      In my constituency, that is certainly the case. We have the BAE Systems research centre at Great Baddow, and just eight weeks ago I was the guest of Alenia Marconi at the Defence Systems and Equipment International, or DSEi, exhibition at the Excel centre in Docklands. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) mentioned that exhibition and raised some questions about the people who had been invited to attend it. However, the exhibition was a fantastic showcase of British defence manufacturers and left one in no doubt about their importance to the economy.
      These are difficult times for all involved in business, and manufacturing in particular. The manufacturing sector has been in recession since the beginning of the year and the latest figures show another significant drop in output. It is therefore essential that the Government should not add to the burden of regulation and bureaucracy any more than is necessary. The Government do not have a very good record on that, and defence firms are right to worry that the Bill might make it harder still for them to compete.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury rightly pressed the Government with his amendment to include in the Bill a requirement that licence applications be determined within a specific period. I regret that the Government were not persuaded by his argument, although I draw some comfort from the assurances that the Minister gave. There is still concern that the Bill may make it even harder for Department of Trade and Industry officials to determine applications within a reasonable time, and that that might add a further impediment to the competitiveness of defence manufacturers.
      The Government's task has been to strike a delicate balance between the need to exert proper control over the export of goods and related technology and the need not to inhibit legitimate trade unnecessarily by imposing unrealistic or burdensome regulation. How successful they have been in that task will be very difficult to tell until we have seen the detail of the secondary legislation. We shall, however, support the Bill on Third Reading, while continuing to raise these issues. I suspect that they will be

      461
      the feature of debate in another place and perhaps here, too, when the secondary legislation comes back before the House.
      6.36 pm
      Mr. O'Neill: I listened with ever-increasing incredulity to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). When he was carrying the bags of the then Prime Minister, I remember trying to elicit information from the then Conservative Government about issues such as Iraqi guns, and getting either a wall of silence or a cackle of deceit. We got no information; we had virtually no means of getting to the bottom of those matters.
      I have been mildly critical of the Bill today. There have been pieces of legislation from which one derives particular satisfaction, and the legislation on the national minimum wage is an example. I take pride in this Bill because I realise that much of the campaigning and arguing that we did in the late 1980s and early 1990s is now bearing fruit; indeed, it has borne fruit.
      There are some grounds for complaint about the tardiness with which the Bill was produced. Nevertheless, reports have been produced and improved on year on year, largely as a consequence of the Quadripartite Committee's criticisms. The reports started out with an unacceptable degree of opacity in their writing and presentation, and it was thanks to the Clerk of the Committee and some of its members—Ted Rowlands, its then Chairman, in particular—that the publications were put into an intelligible form. The importance of doing that was that the argument can no longer be levelled against us that we should not restrict trade in armaments because if we do not carry on that trade, someone else will because there is no leverage in the international arena. We now have that leverage.
      I am always reluctant to place any Government on the high moral ground, but we now have a position from which to argue internationally in favour of a better control regime for armaments. That means that we can give the lie to the argument, hinted at by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, that we are somehow going to disadvantage our armaments industry. Armaments industries always complain, and they always will.
      We now have a means whereby we can show a proper way of dealing with the arms business, which I believe is a legitimate part of economic activity. It reduces the cost base and the unit cost of our own equipment and is an important employer and trainer of labour. I know from my experience in the east of Scotland that the armaments industry was the engine that drove what became known as silicon glen and the high-tech civilian industries.lb/>
      I welcome the Bill and I hope that it may be tweaked a bit in the Lords. Every Opposition complain about negative resolutions. I spent years labouring in the Augean stables of the Standing Committees, looking for references to negative procedures so that we could have a debate on them. That kept the Committees going. Sometimes that took us half the night—but my point is that, by and large, the Bill marks a major step forward in our handling of the armaments industry. It can be held up as an example to the rest of the world. It is not often that we can do that in Britain, and for that reason alone—apart
      462
      from all the other desirable elements—I wish the Bill well elsewhere. I hope that eventually we shall secure a degree of prior scrutiny, but at this stage I am happy for the best not to be the enemy of the good.
      6.40 pm
      Dr. Tonge: I well remember, as a very new Member, sitting in the Locarno rooms in the Foreign Office and listening to that speech about foreign policy with an ethical dimension. I do not think there was a dry eye in the house that morning: it was tremendously moving and very exciting to feel that we were part of a new Government with a new slant—a new ethical dimension.
      We waited excitedly for tangible proof of the new direction that we had taken. We waited, and we waited. In my office, we waited particularly for a Bill to follow up the Scott report—a Bill on arms control. We waited four years. When the draft Bill was published, a cheer went up from the young people who worked in the office, and from me. We were delighted; it was extremely welcome. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) is right. This Bill is welcome, and in many ways it is a very good Bill. We will, of course, support it.
      In these closing stages, we should pay tribute to a couple of bodies. I am thinking of non-governmental organisations such as the UK Working Group on Arms, and Saferworld, which have done a tremendous job in supporting and briefing Members. Some of the issues have been very difficult, and I think that their good work should be recorded publicly. I also pay tribute to the Quadripartite Committee, which has been brilliant, and to its Chairman. I was sad to be a member of it for such a short time; its work and its report have been exemplary. I do not understand why the Government cannot accept the concept of prior scrutiny. A Committee like the Quadripartite Committee would be entirely responsible, and would surely respect the needs of the arms industry. It would weigh up those needs, and balance them against all the other needs that it had to consider.
      I am still concerned about brokering. I am still not convinced that the Bill would prevent a man with a mobile telephone from selling arms wherever he wanted to. We have been given all sorts of assurances, but I hope the matter will be considered again in the other place. My main concern, however, still relates to the cumulative effect of arms exports on developing countries. Linked with that, of course, is our favourite topic this week, sustainable development. We have heard well-argued speeches on the subject today and yesterday, when we debated the International Development Bill. I feel that the Minister's responses today have been pathetic—he seems constantly to fall back on the European code of conduct, which he apparently considers to be legally binding. We all know that it is not.
      Let me read the Minister a short extract from the report of the Committee stage. It is very short; do not despair. I said:
      "The Minister must realise that much argument resulted when the Government gave permission for the repair of guns for Morocco, which borders Western Sahara."
      Members may remember the incident. I continued:
      "That contravened clause 8 of the European code of conduct, and nothing happened as a consequence. The provision is not legally binding".

      463
      In replying, the Minister said:
      "Criterion 8 derives from the EU code of conduct on arms exports, and we are firmly committed to it. Hon. Members want to prevent a future Government from withdrawing from consideration of sustainable development as part of the export licensing process. They are ignoring the fact that we signed up to the EU code of conduct. We shall not withdraw from it, and a future Government will have to be bound by clause 8".— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 July 2001; c. 47-48.]
      That is all very fine, but a couple of months before the code of conduct had already been broken and nothing happened, so it is not very reassuring constantly to fall back on that code.
      Sadly, although it is welcome, it is a curate's egg of a Bill. I hope that it will be further improved in the other place.
      6.45 pm
      Roger Casale: I wish to make three brief points. At the end of our proceedings on the Bill, first, let us not lose sight of where the Bill came from. I certainly remember that afternoon in February 1996, before I was a Member of this place, when the Scott report was published and layer after layer of deceit was peeled away to reveal a rot at the core of our Government, which was the old decrepit system of arms control. All of us have a duty to restore public confidence in the transparency of our political system and in the Government's capacity to exercise a rational, fair and effective policy on the control of arms. I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards that end.
      Secondly, the Bill is long overdue. The previous such Bill was passed before the second world war in 1939. Times have changed since then, but let us remember that times have also changed since 11 September. We started to consider the Bill before the events of that day. I hope that the Minister and the Government will recognise that times change, the world becomes a more dangerous place and we need all the time to keep arms control measures and legislation under review and up to date.
      Thirdly, I welcome the spirit of many of the responses during the debate. Clearly, there is much work still to be done on parliamentary scrutiny, on end-use monitoring and in particular on ensuring that sustainable development is, if not in the Bill, very much part of the spirit of the legislation as it operates in practice.
      It is a landmark Bill and it rightly has all-party support. Although we understand and support the Government's desire to ensure that the Bill works in practice, much work can still be done when we review the Bill's operation in the light of experience to keep the ideas and aspirations that lie behind it alive in the years to come.
      6.48 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: It looks as though it falls to me to be the tail-end Charlie in the debate on this important Bill. I entirely support the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who made a number of extremely important points about detailed aspects of the Bill. We shall follow with great care how the Government implement the Bill, if it manages to secure safe passage through the other place.
      However, I think that it is wrong to pretend to the British public that there has not been a system of arms export control in place over the past 60 years—there has.
      464
      It may not have been perfect, but Governments of all complexions have tried to operate an ethical foreign policy in respect of arms exports. It would be invidious to suggest that any previous Government had been cavalier in the way in which they allowed British arms equipment to be exported to other countries.
      Despite my repeated requests for evidence from Ministers of where there had been any lack of integrity on the part of British defence exporters, virtually no evidence whatever was forthcoming, apart from the mention of Sandline. Certainly, none of our major companies in the UK, which employ so many of our constituents, has ever been cited by any hon. Member—any Back Bencher or Minister—as having shown any lack of integrity in the way in which it promoted its business overseas. Those who are engaged in these activities are generally people of integrity and the last thing that they would want to see is British equipment falling into the hands of those who might use it against our own armed forces.
      The Bill generally commands support. We have had a system of export control, but it has been deemed inadequate. That is why we had the Scott inquiry, which made a number of recommendations that the Bill is seeking to implement.
      BAE Systems has its headquarters in my constituency. It said:
      "The new Bill will render the UK's export control regime more efficient and more effective whilst at the same time meeting the ethical objectives set out in the preamble to the Bill. However, it is also our hope that the Bill will not have the effect of adversely affecting either the competitiveness of UK companies or their ability to collaborate effectively with EU and/or US partners."
      It also believes that it should not be put at a disadvantage as against its competitors in the United States or the EU. It is a common view among Conservative Members that the Government must implement this legislation carefully to ensure that it is not our companies in our constituencies that are put at an unfair disadvantage.
      On a point of principle, I believe that the supply of defence equipment to our friends and allies enhances Britain's interests and influence overseas. It helps to reinforce stability in potentially turbulent regions of the world. It reduces the unit cost of supplying British equipment to Her Majesty's forces and is an honourable thing to do.
      The Government have frequently committed British troops to action and we stand poised now. Who knows the extent to which British troops will be called upon to act in defence of our interests and in the wider interests of freedom around the world in the coming weeks. Defence exports help to ensure that they can afford to go into battle with the best of British equipment, not with equipment that we have had to buy from overseas because we have reduced our domestic capacity to produce it. The Government must strive to operate this law without emasculating a vital component of British manufacturing industry. I hope that they will interpret the law in that way.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Kidderminster Hospital
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    6.53 pm
    Dr. Richard Taylor: I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to raise the matter of the drastic downgrading of Kidderminster general hospital, which as most people know is the main reason why I am here. I am especially grateful that, at this time of international crisis, we can still consider important local issues. If we were deflected from that, terrorism would have won a battle.
    On 12 September I was lucky enough to visit a local primary school. The joy, optimism and hope on the faces of the children restored to me a real feeling that the world was still a good place in which to live and that life had to go on. After introducing me, the head teacher asked a five-year-old what my job was. The five-year-old said, "He helps the Prime Minister." In fact, that statement has hidden depth. As an Independent, I have the huge privilege of being able to support the Prime Minister if he is right and being equally able, without the Whips leaning on me, to oppose him if he is wrong. It is a unique position.
    I am now daring to say that Ministers were wrong in their decision about the reconfiguration of acute hospitals in Worcestershire. My job is to prove that to the House and to show that Ministers have based their decision on inaccurate and incorrect information. When I left the school, the small primary children sang a jazzy little number about David and Goliath. They did not realise how exactly apt that was.
    The decision was to remove all acute in-patient beds and the accident and emergency department from an acute general hospital to a new hospital 18 miles away. Let us remember that there are nearly 100,000 people within four to five miles of the original site. They are now 18 miles away from the new site, and a further 25,000 people can be up to 35 miles from the new hospital. The acute general hospital had received a charter mark, most of its buildings are only six to 23 years old and, in the words of a distressed local lady, it is woven into the fabric of Kidderminster life—since, in fact, the 1820s
    How was the decision reached? I make no apology for referring to that because it allows me to alert other people facing threatened downgrading to the unscrupulous methods that managers may use to obtain their ends, and to why public consultation is in such disrepute. Divide and rule is one of the techniques; some are given enough to be kept quiet. That was shown by the responses to the consultation process. Of the 122 responses from official bodies, 50—nearly half—came from the 20 per cent. of the county's population living in the north-west part. Of those 50, 49 were rigidly against the plan.
    The local medical committee, which represents all general practitioners in the county, rejected the proposals and found no evidence that they would provide a better, safer service. Another interesting response came from the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith). She was reported by the Worcestershire health authority as saying that she supported the proposal for a new hospital in Worcester, but not one which would centralise basic services away from local people. That is just what the plan did for my constituents, but not for hers.
    466
    Consultation has also been brought into such disrepute by the use of option appraisals. If hon. Members find them mentioned in hospital service reviews, they should beware. They are merely a method of wrapping up pseudo-statistics which are produced to confuse. In the Worcestershire case, the option appraisal was purely and simply a vote by the majority in the south and east of the county against the minority in the north and west.
    What were the reasons for the decision? In these days of open government, we were staggered to find that communications between the NHS executive in the west midlands—now the west midlands regional office—and the Department of Health are entirely secret. Nobody can get at them. The reasons quoted are that the hospital would be unviable because of royal college guidelines for consultant specialisation and junior doctor training. That was absolute rubbish because the same guidelines were interpreted differently in many parts of the country.
    Having forced through an unpopular decision, how does one realise it despite opposition? One allays the opposition—first, with spin.
    "A comprehensive hospital will remain, dealing with the majority of both elective and emergency services."

    Those were the words of the health authority, but one could not go there with appendicitis, a heart attack or pneumonia.
    "85 per cent. of patients will still be treated"—"
    It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitzpatrick.]
    Dr, Taylor: The health authority continued:
    "85 per cent. of patients will still be treated there."
    Of course they will; that number is made up of the day cases, out-patients and investigations that one finds at any hospital.
    If one puts the kiss of death on an acute general hospital, staff will leave. Most believed that there was no alternative. The next step is to denigrate one's opponents. Most of us were called medical dinosaurs, a few were called militant activists and I was called King Canute. Thus, it happened that consultants had to agree. The downgrading, or virtual closure, was engineered by loss of staff, which meant the hospital was unsafe, and happened on 18 September 2000.
    Where do we go from here? The unfairness is obvious. Hexham, Kendal, Bishop Auckland, Banbury and Neath—to name but a few—are smaller concentrations of population, with similar or fewer journeys, which have retained far more than we have.
    Looking to the future, there is an admission that bed numbers were wrong. Also, there was an admission that elective in-patient surgery has to return to Kidderminster. We are looking forward to the time when primary care trusts will take control, because we can talk to our trust.
    Matthew Green: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is concern that the primary care groups will not be in a position to form the primary care trusts in our region in time for the 1 April deadline? Does he agree that we need to seek guidance from the Minister tonight on whether there might be some sort of delay?
    Dr. Taylor: There is real concern among primary care groups who are not yet primary care trusts that they will

    467
    not be ready. When that is coupled with the drastic reorganisation that produces strategic health authorities, we have a double reason for being worried about the future. I am pleased that we are working with the primary care trusts because these are people that we can talk to.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: On behalf of other Members of Parliament from the region, may I say that we all agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments and that we are looking forward to the Minister's response to his legitimate concerns?
    Dr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support and for that of hon. Friends who cannot be here tonight.
    We are delighted with the changes that are occurring at the top of the Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust. With the appropriate replacements, I and the primary care trust may start to have meaningful dialogue, which has been impossible to date.
    I am delighted that the Royal College of Physicians and the Nuffield trust are looking at models that will provide emergency services at local hospitals. That is crucial for us in our battle to regain emergency services for Wyre Forest and south Shropshire. It is crucial to hospitals such as Crawley, Canterbury, Haslar, Penzance and, possibly, Pontefract, where emergency services may be threatened by larger neighbours. It is crucial to restore fairness and equality in the provision of emergency services across the country.
    In this way, there may never again need to be such an unnecessary revolution as that which put me here. Purely selfishly, I am extremely grateful to be here, as this is the most superb job. I promote it as the best way for a retired doctor to enhance his pension, and I must say that I am enjoying what I do.
    I do not believe that there is any other concentration of population of nearly 100,000 people that does not have an accident and emergency department within 18 miles. Despite frequent assertions by the health authority and others, the changes are not in the best interests of patients; that is the opinion of most local doctors, whose opposition was removed when they were led to believe that the changes were the only possibility for the future of hospital services in the county. It is not true that the Royal College of Surgeons, as has been said, was about to withdraw junior hospital doctor training recognition before the review.
    I, and the 28,000 people who put me in this place, request the Minister to allow fairness and equality to return to local emergency hospital services throughout the country, by supporting the studies by the Royal College of Physicians and others to find workable models for emergency care in local hospitals.
    Mr. Peter Luff: My hon. Friend knows that I disagree with him about the future chairmanship of the acute hospitals trust, and I am concerned that the point that he has made about bed numbers and the need for an improved A and E service at Kidderminster may be underplayed by any future chairman. Does he share my concern that the chairman who takes over from Mr. Harold Musgrove should not be a Government placeman who does the Government's
    468
    bidding but one who argues robustly for the interests of Worcestershire, as I believe that Mr. Musgrove is now doing?
    Dr. Taylor: I am delighted with my hon. Friend's intervention because, although we disagree about that particular personality, we are both determined that the person who succeeds him will be someone who welds together the hospital services of the whole county into one system, which really works. He must be someone with the management skills of King Solomon, if King Solomon had them, because it will be a tremendous job to weld together consultants who work differently, with three very separate communities. It is so important that we get the right person, whom we—the GPs, the hospital consultants, all MPs—can really talk to
    Mr. Luff: And who will argue with the Government.
    Dr. Taylor: I am very grateful.
    In my view, the Government are very good at ideas, initiatives and words. I want to quote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, some of her own words, which are absolutely crucial to the future of the national health service. In the letter that was circulated with the consultation document on involving patients and the public in health care, she wrote:
    "The culture within the NHS needs to change, so that the views of patients and citizens are not only valued, but listened to and acted upon as well."
    Those are excellent words and excellent aims. Can the Government deliver?
    Mr. Luff: As the extra time is available, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it in order to take two minutes of the House's time?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. As this has become a debate of 37 minutes maximum, it is possible for other hon. Members to take part, but I hope that they will have regard to the fact that the originator of the motion deserves a full ministerial answer.
    7.8 pm
    Mr. Peter Luff: I shall speak for no more than two minutes.
    I was very interested to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), and I agreed with almost everything in it. However, I believe that he did not sufficiently emphasise one issue—the contribution that Kidderminster general hospital can make to increasing total bed numbers in the county. That is no criticism of what he said; it is just an observation.
    There is now a consensus in the county that bed numbers are far too low. The Government's own figures show that, and privately health managers believe that the Government figures underestimate how low they are. I am one of those who actually took an optimistic view of bed numbers, and in a sense I am making a confession that I believe that I got that judgment wrong.
    I hope that, in her remarks, the Minister will specifically consider how Kidderminster general hospital can contribute to increasing total bed numbers in the

    469
    county, and—if it is not taking the debate too wide—will consider guarantees about bed numbers at the new Worcestershire royal hospital, which, working with Kidderminster, should address what could otherwise be an exceptionally serious problem. I hope that the Minister will respond on the bed numbers issue in Worcestershire as a whole and Kidderminster's contribution to solving that problem.
    7.10 pm
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Before the Minister responds, I remind her that a rather cynical promise was made in the general election campaign that a review would be held of the situation with regard to Kidderminster hospital. I hope that she will say more about that review, and that she will take account of the consensus that has emerged with regard to bed numbers, which even includes the outgoing chairman of the NHS trust hospital. The House, and people in the Strangers Gallery, would be thrilled to hear more good news from the Minister.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should explain that there is no such thing as a Strangers Gallery, and that there is just the Chamber.
    7.10 pm
    (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to be able to bring what I hope will be good news to the House, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing this debate on Kidderminster hospital. I am fully aware of local concerns about the current and future level of services provided by the hospital. The very presence of the hon. Gentleman in the House is evidence of how key those issues are to the local community.
    I am also delighted that the education service in Wyre Forest is working so well that primary school children think that the job of all Members of Parliament is to help the Prime Minister. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be delighted at that news.
    I do not want to go back over old ground, and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has set out the way in which decisions about Kidderminster were reached. However, the proposals in the "Investing in Excellence" strategy document were aimed at ensuring that we improved the quality of health services for patients across the whole of Worcestershire.
    The consultation process carried out in 1998 uncovered a huge strength of feeling among people in the Kidderminster area, with many voicing their concerns about the possible closure of Kidderminster hospital. I emphasise that it was never the case that that hospital should close. There has been much confusion about that.
    As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest knows, the Government have stated our commitment to modernisation and to driving forward reform and improvement. I do not intend to dwell on what has happened in the past, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has been generous enough in meetings with other Ministers to say that he too wants to look to the future and to try and secure the best services for his constituents.
    470
    In May of this year, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) mentioned, at the request of the then hon. Member for Wyre Forest, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that, on re-election, the Government would establish an independent clinical review of future elective services at Kidderminster hospital. On 26 June, the Government confirmed that the review would be undertaken by Professor Ara Darzi, professor of surgery at St Mary's hospital in London. The review was also to take place in the context of the new opportunities for planned increases in elective surgery arising from implementation of the Government's NHS plan.
    Professor Darzi got to work extremely quickly and submitted his report on 31 July. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest is aware, the Minister of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and Professor Darzi visited Kidderminster hospital on 27 September to announce that the Secretary of State had accepted the review's recommendations in full.
    The review recommended that the new £13 million diagnostic and treatment centre at Kidderminster hospital should be expanded to include up to 20 more beds. It also recommended that the range of surgery provided at Kidderminster should be increased, thus reducing waiting times and increasing access for local people, and that Kidderminster should have three operating theatres rather than two, so that more operations could be carried out.
    The review also recommended that better links between Kidderminster and other local hospitals should be established, especially in connection with transport for relatives. It also recommended the development of telemedicine links for the doctors involved.
    As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations in full. Their implementation will enable Kidderminster hospital to carry out a wider variety of common operations, including tonsillectomies, prostate operations, hysterectomies and gall bladder operations. It will also be able to carry out more orthopaedic operations, and more procedures—including procedures for children—in connection with eye, ear, nose and throat surgery.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: I want to emphasise the urgency of those changes. Forgive the clinical detail, but some of my constituents with prostate problems have to get up 15 times at night and cannot go to work because they are so desperate, and they require simple prostate operations as soon as possible. I fear that that will not be possible for many months because the trust wants to make major structural changes. It must be made possible, and the facilities already exist. In my constituency, the men of my age—luckily, I am not quite troubled in that way yet—must be able to get their prostates seen to within the next very few months, please.
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Not just for people in Kidderminster, but for people throughout the country, trying to reduce waiting times is clearly a key priority for us, so that they are seen as soon as possible.
    Mr. Luff: Will the Minister confirm that the new surgical facilities that she mentions at Kidderminster are

    471
    intended to serve not just Wyre Forest, but the whole county? Will she take on board the fact that none of the county's other MPs has been informed of the outcome of the report to which she has alluded? We have relied on press reports. Will she encourage her colleagues in the Department of Health and, indeed, in the health authority to make greater efforts to explain that those new facilities will serve the whole county? It is very important to ensure that that is understood.
    Ms Blears: Yes, the new facilities will serve the whole county, but they are primarily directed in the first instance at serving local people. because they are the people who will have access to them. As the services develop, they will improve for the whole county. I certainly will undertake to try to ensure that the information is made available to as many people as possible. After all, this is extremely good news, and it is certainly in everyone's interest that that information is broadly available.
    Matthew Green: The Minister keeps referring to the county of Worcestershire. Is she aware that about 15,000 people in my constituency used Kidderminster hospital? That number is now declining because they have to travel further afield. She talks about the services being available for Worcestershire, but will she also include the many residents in the South Shropshire and Bridgnorth districts?
    Ms Blears: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have used the facilities at Kidderminster for a long time, and the intention is to provide facilities for as many people, who want to use them, as we can in the area. As the facilities develop and begin to come on stream, local people will be the first priority and then those across the county. Under the new organisation of the health service, it will be a matter for primary care trusts to commission appropriate services for their populations, but clearly they will want to consider the range of facilities available, irrespective of county and administrative boundaries.
    We must consider where it is appropriate for patients to go and where it is best for them to get their local services, so I do not view administrative boundaries as an artificial cut-off. The patient flows and clinical networks are important, and putting the power with the primary care trust will enable local communities to commission appropriate services for local people, which will be a significant improvement.
    More beds and operating theatres will be provided at Kidderminster, and a wider range of surgical procedures will be available. That is extremely good news for local people. I am also pleased to inform the hon. Member for Wyre Forest that, as part of national commitments to reduce maximum waiting times for operations to six months by 2004, 6,000 more operations will be carried out in Worcestershire. Thanks to Professor Darzi's recommendations, it is envisaged that Kidderminster hospital will carry out about 2,500 of those extra operations. That should result in more local people being treated more quickly and more conveniently at Kidderminster.
    The hon. Gentleman will also appreciate, given his background, that local clinicians and health care managers need to ensure that the Kidderminster diagnostic treatment centre is well planned, successfully introduced and provides high-quality services. Of course, we are anxious
    472
    to avoid any delay in implementing Professor Darzi's recommendations, but the Health Act 1999 places a statutory duty of quality on the health service. We must ensure that we put in place arrangements to monitor the standards of the services provided.
    As hon. Members have noted, the local primary care trusts will play a pivotal role in leading the development to ensure that the all health organisations in the area take part in developing the service and that they have a commitment to supporting it in the future. It will therefore be necessary to develop protocols for referrals, training and new ways in which new clinical services are to be introduced.
    The local health community anticipates that the trust will be in a position to implement many of the report's recommendations before the planned opening of the diagnostic and treatment centre. We intend to get on with that as quickly as we possibly can. At the same time, we shall maintain the high-quality standards that local people are entitled to expect.
    Miss Kirkbride: That news will be extremely welcome to my constituents. I enter a caveat, however. Is the Minister aware that the accident and emergency department that was at Kidderminster is now a minor injuries unit and that accident and emergency services are now provided at the Alexandra hospital and the Worcester hospital? Clearly, if in-patient surgery for people having fairly serious operations takes place at Kidderminster hospital, the present arrangements for accident and emergency will have to be beefed up so that more than the current service for minor injuries is provided.
    Ms Blears: I commend the hon. Lady's ingenuity in raising the issue of accident and emergency services. I shall come to that shortly. However, I assure her that issues of clinical safety and those relating to high-quality services will be paramount. Therefore, the developments will take place in the context of the whole service. They will not take place piecemeal without any recognition of the knock-on effects that they may have. I am not convinced that that means there will be a full-scale accident and emergency centre at Kidderminster, but I will come to that point shortly.
    In February this year, the Secretary of State announced that 26 new diagnostic and treatment centres will be opened to try to increase the number of routine scheduled operations that can be carried out. By separating them from emergency work and by protecting both streams of work, we can have a real impact on waiting times.
    The new centre at Kidderminster will allow for virtually all the non-emergency, hospital-based health care to be provided for the Wyre Forest population locally. It will also attract those patients from elsewhere in the country—and, no doubt, from Shropshire—who wish to take advantage of the state-of-art facilities proposed.
    It is important to stress again that Kidderminster hospital is not closing. In addition to day-case provision and a comprehensive range of out-patient services, Kidderminster hospital currently provides a purpose-built chemotherapy suite that supports cancer services, paediatric day assessment and home-based support, a midwifery-led unit, a minor injuries unit and a specialised medical rehabilitation ward providing services for patients recovering from medical conditions such as a stroke,

    473
    together with a range of back-up diagnostic facilities. It is important to reassure local people that it will be a centre of excellent health care for themselves and their families.
    Approval has already been given for the development of a new satellite renal dialysis unit to be housed in the Kidderminster diagnostic treatment centre. The centre will also have up to 20 short-stay surgical beds in single rooms with en-suite facilities.
    Worcestershire health authority gave a commitment to keep all services running at Kidderminster hospital during the building of the diagnostic and treatment centre. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest will appreciate therefore that the decanting of services needs to be planned with extreme care to ensure that it proceeds as smoothly as possible.
    The immediate development of short-stay in-patient facilities would almost certainly result in other services being moved around the site. That might make it difficult to keep all the existing services operating, so we need to make sure that the plans go forward in balance and that we recognise the effects on each of the constituent parts of the service. That requires extremely careful planning.
    It is planned to open short-stay surgical beds on a Monday-to-Friday basis for patients with an average length stay of between 24 to 48 hours once suitably qualified staff have been recruited. That is an immediate step that can be taken as soon as staff are in place, and it will ensure that an overnight facility is provided. Additional operating lists have been identified that could take place in Kidderminster to increase the range of services available and these should be in place within the next three to six months. They will come on stream very quickly.
    The full business case for the new centre is due to be completed by the end of this month. The current plan is for construction on the refurbishment of some buildings on the Kidderminster hospital site to commence in June or July 2002 with a view to full opening in the autumn of 2003. On completion, all Professor Darzi's recommendations will be implemented in full.
    As for accident and emergency services, the decision to remove blue light services from Kidderminster was a clinical one, based on real concerns about maintaining high standards of clinical safety where three accident and emergency departments were fairly closely situated. Our overriding duty has to be to put the safety of patients first. I am not aware that any compelling evidence has been produced to convince the health community or Ministers that it would be both safe and viable to provide blue light emergency care from Kidderminster.
    The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) mentioned the minor injuries unit, which is one of the most successful of its type. It has an overall throughput of 20,000 patients and is seeing 75 per cent. of the number of people who used to go to accident and emergency. It is a major part of the service and functioning extremely well. It has well developed protocols with the ambulance trust. The extra investment of £1.3 million has enabled the trust to provide additional crews with high-dependency facilities and additional front-line paramedics to support the ambulance service, which is also functioning extremely well, to ensure that patients are taken to the right place immediately. From April next year the constituents of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest will benefit from access to the new £87 million
    474
    hospital in Worcester which will combine state of the art accident and emergency facilities with appropriate clinical expertise.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: Emergency and accident facilities are the crucial issue. We cannot understand why small hospitals such as Hexham and Kendal have retained blue light services. I commend to the Minister the work of the Royal College of Physicians and Andy Black of Durrow Management. They have produced models in which some emergencies are still dealt with in local hospitals. We believe that a model could be designed for the whole country, based on the Andy Black model and on what is happening at, for example, Hexham, Kendal and Bishop Auckland. That would defuse the terrible anxiety about the loss of emergency services. We do not know—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must leave the Minister time to complete her remarks. I remind him that interventions are distinct from speeches.
    Ms Blears: I am aware of the work to establish other models for accident and emergency care, and am greatly interested in the outcome of that. It is important not to close our minds to a range of ways in which services can be provided. The work is relevant across the country and, in particular, in rural areas that sometimes do not have access to the types of centres that are available in urban ones. Everyone should have the right to receive the best possible services in the most appropriate clinical setting. Local health authorities are working together with primary care trusts and everyone in the local community to achieve that.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) expressed concern about the appointment of the chair of the trust. I can reassure him that appointments are completely in the hands of the independent NHS Appointments Commission. The process will proceed. There is no question of chairs and other trust members being placemen of the Government or anyone else. I am sure that an excellent appointment will be made and he or she will take forward the health service in that community.
    The proposals by Worcestershire health authority will ensure that local people are able to receive appropriate care in their local communities. Change is always difficult in the NHS. There are different and conflicting pressures from, for example, the royal colleges on training accreditation and from local people. The difficulty is to ensure that we balance and reconcile those different interests and that we do it with an eye always to high-quality services for local people. I meant what I said in the discussion document: we need to put patients and citizens at the heart of our national health service and ensure that their views are expressed, listened to and acted on. That is in the best interests of all our communities and, indeed, of our health service. If we go forward in partnership, we can avoid conflict and come to a resolution—
    The motion having been made at Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order
    Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Higher Education
[Relevant documents: Sixth Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee of 2000–01, HC 384—Government's response to the Fourth Report from the Committee, Session 2000–01, on Higher Education: Access; Seventh Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee of 2000–01, HC 385—Responses from the Government and Higher Education Funding Council for England to the Sixth Report from the Committee, Session 2000–01, on Higher Education: Student Retention; Minutes of Evidence taken before the Education Sub-Committee on 14th March 2001, HC 329.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the debate on the two reports on higher education conducted by the former Education and Employment Committee and the Education Sub-Committee. There had not been a full inquiry into higher education for about 20 years and it seemed appropriate for us to look at it at a time when, some would say, the dust had settled on both the Dearing report and the Government's rapid response to it after the 1997 election—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) says that it was too rapid. I shall come to that in a moment.
I will try to keep my remarks reasonably short. In one sense it was an invigorating and pleasurable experience to chair the Committee during those two inquiries. First, we had not looked at higher education before. Secondly, we were trying some new methods of obtaining good evidence for the Committee. We tried a range of seminars. We took the Committee to universities both in the United Kingdom and the United States. We looked at good examples everywhere. We also took a great deal of oral and written evidence. We also had excellent special advisers, and I want to pay tribute to all five of them now because they took such a lead role in making our report as good as it could be.
Committee Chairs do not often say this, but our inquiry was a failure in one sense. The terms of reference were set during the period between the old Chair moving on to pastures new and the new one taking over. I think that members of the Committee will agree that they were set very broadly. When I became Chairman, I realised that we could spend another Parliament pursuing them. We thought through the process and decided to concentrate on two aspects of the report that could make some impact in the run-up to the general election.
I am told by all Select Committee Chairmen on the Liaison Committee that it is slightly different chairing a Select Committee in the year running up to a general election than it is for most of the rest of the time. Some of our interesting discussions on one or two points
138WH
stemmed from that quite understandable, slightly heightened political tension. Select Committees do not wish their recommendations to be ignored and we decided to look at access to higher education and then move on to student retention: how to get them in and keep them in. Looking at those two aspects seemed to be a manageable task.
We started from the base that we all know about. We have now moved to a system not of elite but mass higher education. By 1997, more than 30 per cent. of the relevant population were going off to higher education, and that percentage is steadily rising. The Prime Minister's aspiration is for it to reach 50 per cent. However, moving to a system of mass education, produces interesting problems. Only last week, we were taking evidence on a further education inquiry. It was pointed out that there are now far more people taking higher education in the further education sector than there were students in the whole higher education sector at the time of the Robins report into higher education in the 1960s. That is a measure of the change, and shows how many people are coming into higher education.
The dilemma, which was recognised by the Government and by the previous Conservative Administration, is that whatever the system, it is extremely difficult to get children from lower socio-economic income backgrounds into higher education. That was the case before the changes made by the Labour Government in 1997. It was extremely difficult to encourage children from, to put it bluntly, working class backgrounds to stay in the system and enter higher education. It was an acknowledged problem before students had to pay fees and take loans, and has remained a problem.
That thread ran through our deliberations. When taking evidence, we wanted to find out what Governments of all persuasions had done well and badly, and why they had not succeeded. That was the thrust of our inquiry. Why had we not succeeded? Even when there were full maintenance grants, why did so few young people from working class backgrounds enter higher education? We examined the change in the system after 1997 and asked why it did not work. There were warnings that it might be worse than the one that it replaced. What recommendations could we make to Government to ensure a much broader spread of participation?
Mr. Phil Willis: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, will he explain the staggering refusal of the Select Committee, on any occasion and particularly in its conclusions, to recognise that debt aversion and student poverty are fundamental causes of the Government's failure to expand the university entrance of students from lower socio-economic groups?
Mr. Sheerman: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman. He is the Liberal Democrat spokesman and is knowledgeable about many aspects of education. However, on the Committee—the inquiry took place before he joined—examined those aspects and took a great deal of evidence. Indeed, I remember one day at Manchester university when we consulted all the universities in the area. We invited particularly groups of students, members of staff and those associated with

139WH
universities, such as chaplains, who are not paid by the universities but have an independent voice. They gave evidence about whether and to what extent debt aversion was a problem, and we asked the Government to be aware of that.
The hon. Gentleman's question also relates to student retention: why are students not retained in the higher education system? We must remember that we have the world's second best retention rates after Japan. The drop-out rate is only 17 per cent., of which two thirds drop out in the first year of university. We did not refuse to discuss the question. The evidence that came back to us clearly showed that debt and debt aversion were a problem, but we were not sure about the extent of the problem as we did not have the data or the statistics.
We took evidence from Professor Callender, who had written a report. She was not confident that the data that she used were sufficiently relevant to show that debt and debt aversion were a significant problem, and she planned to use new data. Let us remember that we published the report some time ago. Since then, more evidence has been produced that debt is a problem.
I must put that evidence into perspective, however. The Committee found that debt and debt aversion were a problem, but not of the first order. In the report on retention, we found that the overriding reason why students did not complete their courses was that they had been given the wrong advice and were enrolled on the wrong course. A university department that wants to make up its numbers may take a marginal student who is unlikely to complete the course. In addition, after going through clearing, a student may end up on a course that is not their first choice and in a city to which they never expected to go. That was the number one link found by the Committee.
Dr. Evan Harris: I enjoyed serving on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned DFEE-funded research from South Bank university. In fact, page 16 of the executive summary of that research stated that
"61 per cent. of full-time students agreed with the statement that 'Changes to student funding have deterred some of my friends from coming to university'. The proportion of students agreeing with the statement was highest among students from social classes IV and V…black students…and women aged 25…the very focus of widening participation strategies."
We heard that evidence, but the report failed to reflect it in its recommendations.
Mr. Sheerman: That is true. The report on access was a divided report, and today's debate will reflect that. The hon. Gentleman refers to a poll, not facts or hard data, and other polls suggested that students were still spending at the same level as their peers who were not studying but in work. There was a great deal of evidence, and we had to make a judgment. As we went down that road, there were indications that student debt might be a problem and might be getting worse.
The hon. Gentleman may remember that the Committee strongly recommended that the Government keep a close eye on the situation. Callender's new figures were coming in, and the Higher
140WH
Education Funding Council was gathering new evidence. We recommended that the Government should act quickly if there were real evidence that the new system that they introduced after the 1997 general election was not having the right impact.
Let us not detract from the Committee's suggestions. We proposed a range of possibilities and ways in which students from poorer backgrounds could be attracted to and retained in higher education. I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee will remember our being told that vice-chancellors and senior people in universities were good at following the money. We strongly recommended, therefore, that the premium received by universities for taking a student from a poorer social or academic postcode should be increased from 5 per cent. Some evidence suggested that the premium should be increased to 10 per cent.; some suggested quadrupling it from 5 to 20 per cent.—serious money. The Committee examined the problem and how the Government could remedy it.
I reiterate that we looked back at the position pre-1997—before the changes were introduced—and we saw that there were already difficulties getting through to this group of potential students. As the report shows clearly, much of the evidence—both written and oral—revealed that the real problem was not the level of grant or the system of financing one's way through university, but what happened to children early in their careers. We conducted an early-years inquiry, which showed that many children's potential lifetime of learning was stunted between nought and eight, or even before they have entered the education system.
We took evidence from sure start. As Harold Wilson said, a week is a long time in politics and we cannot wait for a 15-year perspective, but we found considerable evidence that young people switch off their aspirations to carry on with education between the ages of 13 and 16. The other evening we debated the 30 per cent. who are difficult to draw into education or who, if drawn in, find it difficult to maintain their interest and progress into further and higher education or lifelong learning.
One of our strongest recommendations was that the roll-out of education maintenance allowance is a highly significant factor. Not all members of the Committee agreed so strongly, but we showed that the 14-to-16 age group was crucial and urged the Government to examine it closely.
We strongly criticised universities with not such a good record on the breadth of the social and economic background of their student intake. Some stand out with a great disparity from the average. HEFC has come up with a range of figures that suggest that there are low and high performers. I acknowledge the strong criticisms—particularly from one university, but from others, too—of the basis of the HEFC statistics. Where some institutions were less good at attracting a broader range of students from diverse backgrounds, we agreed that they should do better. We wanted the Government to police the system, as it were, and to provide incentives—a carrot-and-stick approach to under-performing institutions.
There can be no doubt that some institutions are under-performing—including, I must confess, the London School of Economics, of which I am a governor. My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong

141WH
Learning is a former governor of that institution. I said expressly to the court of governors that the school is under-performing. I understand the reason for that—it takes a broader spread of students from diverse social and economic backgrounds.
We clearly encouraged under-performers to examine the position carefully. We did not want to use abusive language. We encouraged a dialogue about problems. We wanted under-performing institutions to recognise problems and find ways of dealing with them. Whenever I met vice-chancellors or other senior people in universities, I encouraged them to use good management, to look down the supply chain and examine linkages with feeder schools.
When we visited the United States, we examined some of the most elite universities in the country—Princeton, Berkeley and Stanford—which had a sophisticated way of saying that they did not receive many students from poorer social backgrounds in their part of the US. They wanted to know what they were doing wrong; they wanted to send out emissaries; they wanted to send out their full-time staff and their alumni to try to build the right relationships. We did some good work and made some good suggestions. We saw good practice that could be emulated in this country without Government interference.
Chris Grayling: When the hon. Gentleman and his Committee were in the United States, did they find that the universities' endowment foundations, which are independent of the day-to-day or year-to-year inflow of funds for students, gave those universities a greater ability to take a profound look at the base from which they encourage students and at the substance of the institutions?
Mr. Sheerman: We all certainly picked up on that; the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In fact, some of us have become sick of hearing excuses from higher education institutions in this country, such as "America is a different culture, the alumni give to universities, they have had hundreds of years to establish funds."
I am sure that my colleagues will remember our visit to New York university. Twenty years ago, that university received few alumni donations and had few residences—most students commuted. It recognised the problem, decided to become a residential university, set up a new foundation and bought and rented buildings. We were told that none of the bankers said no when the university approached them and said that it wanted to buy a building, fill it for 52 weeks of the year and set the rent.
That is an example to Leeds, Bristol and so many universities in towns where accommodation is a problem. Many universities should have done something about that a long time ago. We saw many exemplars in the United States: not only did universities start from scratch to build up that kind of base but they did so rapidly.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Will my hon. Friend comment on the importance of graduate schools in the universities that he is discussing? From my experience of working and teaching in the United States, graduate students do much of the undergraduate
142WH
teaching and are paid for it. Graduate students also do much of the research work. Thus, students are attracted to certain universities because of the increased teaching and support for teaching by people of the same age group.
Mr. Sheerman: That is a good point, too, but I am somewhat embarrassed by it. We skirted around the issue of using postgraduates in teaching, although we visited UMIST and saw some examples there. I will be honest and admit that, under our terms of reference, we did not pursue that; the Select Committee should return to it.
The Select Committee model has been that a report into higher education, early years or whatever was produced, the experience was cathartic and the report was put on a shelf to gather dust. I believe that most hon. Members are aware that, under my chairmanship, we regularly take down such reports and review them. The Government are re-evaluating student finance and want to make an impact, so we are dusting off the higher education reports and taking new evidence. I say clearly to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that we will make different representations this time, because there is now more evidence about student poverty.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman protests too much about the lack of response in December—in fact, there was significant evidence—and let the cat out of the bag when he said that there was a general election coming up. Clearly, the report is about the general election rather than about the issues.
In the United States, the Select Committee looked at a system of university structuring and funding that has a totally different foundation. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is right to refer to endowments but, clearly, the endowment system in the United States is different from what we have even at Oxbridge. Why would the Chairman of the Select Committee steadfastly refuse to take on board the evidence of the Cubie commission, which had completed a most detailed examination of student aversion to debt in Scotland? Andrew Cubie gave evidence to the Committee—all the evidence was current—yet the report made virtually no reference to it; it is as if it did not exist, as if Scotland were some faraway planet rather than a part of the United Kingdom. What is the explanation?
Mr. Sheerman: The explanation is that we took an enormous amount of evidence. It was at my instigation that Cubie and his colleagues were invited to give evidence at the outset. We set a precedent: the Minister for Education in the Scottish Parliament came to give evidence to the Select Committee too.
We listened to the evidence. It is the Select Committee's job to sift and evaluate the evidence and then to strike a balance, which some people will not like. However, we believe that we got the balance right. We published one report, on access, on 30 January 2001 and the other on 13 March 2001; it is early days in terms of hard statistics.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I recall that there was a

143WH
long discussion in the Committee about the relevance of Scotland to the outcome of the report. In considering Cubie and the Scottish experience, we viewed Scotland as a helpful comparator; it represented an experience learning curve for the Committee, as did our trip to the United States. However, the focus was on England and Wales as a function of the Government's devolution responsibilities. The Committee was constrained in considering how much it could and should look to the Scottish experience as directly applicable rather than comparative. I do not know whether the Chairman of the Committee recollects that.
Mr. Sheerman: I recollect that but I also recollect the fact—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is murmuring and whingeing and carrying on. The evidence that he has cannot have come from the majority of members of the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman had been on the Committee he would know what happened. We had dinner with Andrew Cubie, and talked to him formally and informally; he was an unhappy man because his recommendations had not been accepted by the Scottish Executive—the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party—and he was unhappy about the compromise. I understand that people in Scotland were as unhappy about it as many had been about the Government's reaction to the Dearing report.
We should not think that Cubie came from on high and made recommendations that were accepted and implemented in Scotland. When we took evidence it was very close to the event. A Select Committee should not be swept along by fashion and instantaneous evidence. It must consider things over time, as we did. The Scottish changes had just occurred; there was no evidence of what would happen. However, we now have evidence of how many children are going to Scotland to study; the figures are worrying because there is an increase in the number of students going to Scottish universities this year compared with other British universities. That marked diversity was shown in material published two weeks ago in the Scottish and the UK press.
Dr. Evan Harris: Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), I want to say that even if one does not accept that the Cubie recommendations are relevant to this country, his evidence should inform our discussions. There is nothing in the water in Scotland that makes people there more debt-averse than poor students here. Indeed, the Cubie report clearly stated that he proposed the introduction of non-repayable bursaries for some full-time higher education students to counter loan aversion and facilitate greater access, as
"only in this way will the universities and colleges help attract students from under-represented groups."
Whether from Cubie-full or the Scottish Executive, the message rings out from the evidence.
Mr. Sheerman: At certain times, when the hon. Gentleman was passionate about it, his voice rang out about certain aspects of the matter, but I do not remember his being so passionate about Cubie. He is
144WH
both a member of the Select Committee and the Front Bench spokesman on higher education. In the run-up to the election, his party ran a successful campaign on student debt up and down the country, on university campuses and so on. That is not a criticism. I know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I applaud his political energy.
As I have taken many interventions, I shall continue for a couple of minutes over my time. The first report was very controversial and caused a lot of division and unhappiness. So far, no one has mentioned a particular piece of evidence in it—[Interruption.] I did not hear that name and I am not about to mention it. The first report was fair enough but the second one was agreed and had a very different tone. It would be wrong not to ask for those reports to be read and re-read. They were an honest evaluation of what we thought were the problems at the time.
A clear message that came to me as Chairman of the Select Cttee, as is written into the evidence, was that universities are the key to our future. Everyone knows that I share that view strongly, because I express it strongly whenever I talk about higher education. Most people in the House and the country do not understand just how vital universities will be in regenerating our economy. I know the criticism that people sometimes level at us, that some of us who believe in economic regeneration do not believe in individual fulfilment. Of course we all believe in individual fulfilment—but we also believe that a fulfilled individual can help us to create a successful, creative, imaginative and innovative economy. That is what we desperately need. I always challenge people to imagine taking universities out of any town or city. If we took them out of Leeds, Manchester, London and Huddersfield there would be devastation—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends want a commercial. The same would be true of Edinburgh, Bristol or anywhere. The importance of universities to the future of our regions, cities and towns cannot be underestimated.
What should we do? The evidence in the two reports highlighted several issues that the Government—and future Governments—must address to fulfil the potential of higher education. First, we must pay university teachers decent pay that attracts and retains talent. We are pretty close to the margin in keeping the talented people we need in higher education. I am still a vestigial member of the Association of University Teachers; I do not have much connection with it now but I passionately believe that university teachers must be paid decent wages. Many of those employed in universities do not earn what teachers earn. Last night I was talking to an Oxford professor; his son is also a professor, and earns less than a nursery head. People might say, "So what?", but the Government must consider the issue of salaries for research and teaching in universities.
Mr. Willis: Where is the money coming from?
Mr. Sheerman: We will come to that. It is a very good question, like all the hon. Gentleman's questions.
Secondly, we cannot just splurge on research for three years and then let it lapse. Money must constantly be poured into research if universities are to be taken

145WH
seriously as world-class research institutions. The Government have put significant amounts of money into research over the past three or four years, but they have to realise that the funding must continue. Higher salaries, research and the regeneration role must be maintained with real resources. The evidence given to the Select Committee showed that we were spending about the same percentage of gross domestic product per capita on higher education as most of our major competitors. It was not as much as the highest spend, but somewhere in the middle band.
Let us examine more closely our higher education spend. About 40 to 45 per cent. of it was allocated to student support, which was double the spend of our competitors. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was right to ask where the money would come from. If we returned to the old system of maintenance grants for all students that we had until three years ago, where would the money come from? Let us consider our priorities. The majority of members of the Select Committee agreed that we must help poorer students who are finding it difficult to stay at university. However, for the average student, the principles of Dearing were right. Students should pay something towards the cost of their education because they are receiving a great benefit that will repay them throughout their lifetime. If they can afford to, parents should pay something towards their children's higher education. The present sum of £1,000 a year is a small proportion of the cost.
Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: Not at the moment. I shall be finishing in a couple of minutes. If we want such expansion, where will the money come from? We should never return to the time when we spent an enormous amount of money on student support, but it is important to get the balance right at the margins. There is now a much stronger case for protecting marginal and poorer students and introducing a new form of financial support for them. We may have to go beyond that, but we cannot afford to move much further the balance of HE spend on student support. Perhaps the money will come from parents. Many hon. Members have benefited from a higher education, so why should we not pay something extra towards it?
Mr. Willis: How about the penny on income tax?
Mr. Sheerman: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would say that and he makes a fair point. A balance should be struck so that those who benefit from higher education make a contribution to it.
There have been many interventions in my speech so at times I have been slightly off track. We had an interesting time compiling the two reports. I am sure that most members of the Select Committee enjoyed that process. We learned a lot and that is shown in the reports. That there was some slight disagreement was shown in the first report, but the second report was agreed unanimously and it sets out some helpful conclusions.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not think that I am not in agreement with the Government, but they must take higher education more seriously. I
146WH
accept that my hon. Friend is new in the job. She will be scrutinised by the Select Committee soon, as will all the members of the education team, and she will face some tough questions. I know that she is committed to higher education, but it is no good people being committed if they let others kick them around. I have known my hon. Friend for a long time and I know that people do not usually kick her around and get away with it. Surprise, surprise, perhaps the Prime Minister became worried about what was happening in the election campaign and said that student finance and higher education had to be revalued. If such a message came from No. 10, so be it. I hope that the Department is resolute to ensure that the inquiry produces a proposal that works positively for higher education and gets the balance right. It would be criminal to get the balance wrong.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will not like this, but senior people in the university system—some speaking over dinner or a cup of tea rather than in front of the Select Committee—said that the change in the basis of student finance was one of the toughest but bravest measures that the Labour Government introduced. Hon. Members may not like it, but, that is the opinion of many people in higher education. If priorities for higher education are to be changed, tough decisions must be made. Decisions may be tough, but they must be right in order for the correct developments in higher education to happen over the next 20 to 30 years and that is important.
I crave your indulgence, Mr. Pike, for a longer speech than I intended. However, many hon. Members shared the time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), it will be noticed that many hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate. I can call everybody only if hon. Members co-operate. I urge that to be taken into account. I do not have the power to curtail speeches, but courtesy should be shown to others who wish to speak.
3.11 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Pike. I will do my best to comply with your encouragement to be brief by highlighting a few of the aspects that arise from the reports and the Government's subsequent responses, rather than rehearsing the Committee's experience during the prolonged and thorough inquiry on higher education.
It was a privilege to serve on the Select Committee on Education and Employment, although I am no longer a member of an Education Select Committee. All hon. Members agree that nothing is more important than our responsibility, as a generation of politicians, to influence the chances in life that are given to the generation of people who are coming through the education system. The Committee seriously considered that and, above all, how to give the correct context and encouragement to professionals who provide the service. The Committee was hard working. I echo the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills—as it is now called—in congratulating and praising the raft of expert advisers who helped the Committee and who were committed and frequently available. They were exceptionally helpful.

147WH
I pay tribute to the hard work and leadership given to the Committee by my colleague Mr. Nicholas St. Aubyn, the former hon. Member for Guildford, who, with a clear set of views and an open mind to the advice that was received, always engaged in the debate on higher education with deep passion and commitment, which continues during his temporary sabbatical outside this place. I am pleased that the Chairman acknowledges that.
The Chairman was correct to show that there was a balance between the positive and the less attractive side of the way in which the Committee interpreted the evidence. While there were differences of emphasis and, at times, vigorous arguments about student retention, the report was unanimous because although compromises were made during discussions, the thrust was correct. The Chairman fairly identified the matters on which we look to the Government to show commitment and practical application equal to that demonstrated across all parties during the report's production.
I wish to pick up on a point that was made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). It is important to state that debt aversion was accorded a lower priority in the report than would now be considered appropriate. However, at the time, the evidence was embryonic. Evidence was offered by Southampton university, but it was not corroborated, and there was not a large enough body of experience to show that it was conclusive, or the primary issue.
As we lacked conclusive evidence, it was difficult to reflect in the report the instinct that was shared by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members that debt aversion is a high-priority issue. However, I wish to place it on record that there was a discussion about that, although the report is less explicit on the issue than it should have been.
Mr. David Rendel: Why did the hon. Gentleman take that evidence if he was then going to ignore it on the grounds that it was too new?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's question answers itself. A judgment needed to be made, and a Select Committee's function, in terms of the way the House as a whole conducts its business, is to make collective judgments. With regard to the access report, the collective principle was not applied because there was a serious diversion of views—as well as of motivation concerning what was going on. However, with regard to the reports under discussion, judgments were reached in a more collective manner, and some compromises were made to try to maintain unanimity and to create an impact—I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, at times, the process of the House is intended to provide a context that will carry impact. This debate is being extended so that the point that he and I are making is on the record. That will help to show where we stood at the time that the report went to print. I hope that that will be of assistance to him.
With regard to the overall context, Governments of every political persuasion take seriously their obligations in respect of education—and higher
148WH
education in particular, because higher education qualifications are the most obvious and demonstrable measure of a successful education system. They also make the biggest impact on the nation's economy and social life.
In 1979, when I left university, one in eight of our young people were entering higher education. In 1997—and I have, of course, chosen that date at random—that statistic had fallen to just under one in three. That step change in terms of student access—and all hon. Members hope that there has also been a step change in terms of quality of education—was achieved under the previous Conservative Governments. I am glad to note, however, that the present Government are determined to deliver on their aspiration that up to one in two people will have the opportunity of a higher education by the time they reach the age of 30.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I endorse the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about that broadening process. Does he agree that much, if not all, of that increase was due to the conversion of polytechnics into universities, and that, because of that, all political parties, regardless of whether or not they are in government, have a responsibility to show concern for the resources of those new universities, and the investment in them?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has made a broader point, which I accept. Redefining polytechnics as universities inevitably made a huge measurable change. The right interpretation is that, during that period, there was a welcome recognition that all those engaging in higher education, whether of a very academic nature or of a more vocational nature, were being placed on a more equal footing. That must be the right approach. The issue that he raises, into which I shall not stray, as it goes down another path, is that of the Government's aspiration of one in two people receiving higher education. If that is achieved, employers and society may question the value of those academic and vocational qualifications, in their various guises and subjects, and whether they allow people to make the huge step forward to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is Chairman of the Select Committee, referred. That balance needs to be struck, but it is a debate for another time, and one that I would welcome.
Mr. David Chaytor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To pursue the point about the extension of participation in the 1980s, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the main reason for that was the increased supply of young people with the necessary qualifications to go to university, which was entirely as a result of the extension of comprehensive education by Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s?
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Eddisbury, I want to make it clear that I am not Mr. Deputy Speaker but Mr. Pike.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Pike. I hope that I shall remember that.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. A combination of factors was responsible. The broadening of educational opportunity was no doubt a contributory

149WH
factor, but that should not diminish, for instance, the role played by those systems of education that retained grammar schools, those that chose to become grant-maintained and assisted places scheme-—much lamented by me and my party—and the independent sector. It is therefore wrong to identify one source of advantage.
In terms of trying to ensure that students are retained once they have had the opportunity to go into higher education, some of the points in the student retention report should be highlighted, especially in relation to the question of non-completion. Although the report should be read in terms of statistics, issues of portability, time spent and the accreditation given to students whose circumstances can be exceptionally varied individually and geographically can impact on the funding of those students. The issue of portability needs to be addressed, and I hope that the Government will tell us their thinking on that.
A point that did not appear in the main body of the report, partly because, sadly, it was in the excised version of the powerful minority report, and which was a passion of my former colleague Nicholas St. Aubyn, was that we should give much more attention to the year out, which fosters greater maturity and acceptance of the obligations and opportunities that are provided by higher education. Sometimes, it is best to take that year out in the middle of a course, so the arguments about portability also apply in that regard.
Dr. Evan Harris: For the record, I urge the hon. Gentleman to remember, in the course of his fascinating and enjoyable speech, that there were two minority reports. The report to which he refers was the one that he and his colleague produced.
Mr. O'Brien: That is almost strictly true. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that on one extraordinarily exciting occasion we managed to agree with him on part of his minority report, and he managed to agree with us on part of our minority report. It is a shame that we were not able to develop that wonderful marriage of thought further.
Moving onwards very swiftly from what is becoming extremely dangerous ground, it is important to emphasise, as the report says and as is accepted by the Government, that social class is not completely straightforward in terms of defining many of the issues that surfaced during our inquiry. Although the Government have given relatively comprehensive and helpful responses on the student retention report, their response to the access report has been poor by comparison. That is partly a matter of presentation, because in the case of the student retention report they helpfully responded recommendation by recommendation. They responded to the access report, however, with a broad-brush letter. I am ashamed to have to expose the Government deliberately trying to avoid answering certain of the recommendations in the access report because the issues that it dealt with were more awkward.
We cannot have this debate without having an honest and robust discussion about funding not only of students, but of staff and research. That point was made earlier. Often, in science and technology subjects,
150WH
teachers are able to secure some external supplement to their income. Perhaps that should be encouraged as part of the marriage of the scientific community with the real world. However, it is much more difficult for those teaching in the arts and the less-developed subjects to secure such a supplement. Although best practice should be followed, such as the Cambridge science park, there is a lot more work to be done. We need to consider the true nature of the marketplace.
On student funding, it was welcome that the Government signed up to the strong argument put forward by my former colleague Nicholas St. Aubyn for the raising of the threshold to £20,000. That is important, not least for when students come to repay the money that they must contribute to their education de post facto. However, it is important mainly because the £10,000 threshold was catching those who wished to work in the charity sector and in public service, for example. Their salaries were just a little bit north of £10,000 but they were not really in a position to pay much until they were earning £20,000.
It is important, for the record, to talk about the access report. It will be recalled that while the terms of reference unquestionably were broad to start with, we expanded them to include access. That resulted in paragraph 11 of the majority report dealing with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at a conference on 25 May 2000, when he referred by name—he introduced her into the public domain—to Laura Spence, whose case has been much
publicised since. It is said that she is now having a very successful time at Harvard university and I am delighted by that. The Committee was seriously divided on that issue. One has only to examine the series of reports on the divisions within the Committee and the particular wording that was tabled by Mr. St. Aubyn and by me. It was felt that the Chancellor should not have made those remarks, but we ended up with an exceptionally unfortunate phrase in the majority report, which states:
"We decided not to examine in detail the individual case of the young woman cited in the Chancellor's remarks. We welcomed the opportunity for public debate".
That left out, after the phrase "the Chancellor's remarks", the following phrase:
"although we suspect it was not the most apposite example which he could have chosen."
The majority report goes on to state:
"The most recent evidence from Oxford University indicates that the number of applications made from state schools increased after the Chancellor's speech, and the number of offers made by the university to state school pupils also increased, dispelling any notion that the Chancellor's remarks were unhelpful."
That is where the Committee was exceptionally unhelpful in its majority report. I will defer to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), whose seat includes Oxford university and who will have the latest information, but I understand that the opposite is the case and that things have been difficult as a result of publicity that the Chancellor inadvisedly gave.
That episode caused much unhappiness on the Committee, not least because it threw into question the motivations of some members, who we felt had more of an eye on the general election than on making the process helpful to the House, and to students and teachers. I wish to place that on the record because it is important to ensure that those points are drawn out.
3.29 pm
Ms Joan Walley: I shall try to keep my remarks brief because I know that many hon. Members, including those on the Select Committee, want to contribute.
I want to try to put the Select Committee's work into the context of my constituency experience, and to urge the Minister to study the Committee's recommendations and act on them to make a real difference to levels of participation in higher education. All too often, Select Committee reports gather dust. It is critical that recommendations are closely examined and that the Minister makes detailed proposals for implementing them.
I want to deal with several aspects of higher education, but of particular importance are the way in which students pay for their education, the Government contribution to maintenance and to grants or loans, and the funding of higher education establishments. It is important that the Government get those things right and do not enter into hasty arrangements that might make matters worse. I hope that the Minister will attend to what the report says about getting the balance right. My constituency badly needs more people to go into higher education, and for many people from families in which no one has done so before the prospect of debt is not an encouragement. We need a cultural change, so that people feel better about higher education.
It is important that we should use joined-up thinking in considering what is to happen next and the process by which the report will be absorbed and configured within Government policy. Sure start and the excellence in cities initiative have been mentioned, and I am happy to report, first-hand, a huge difference in my constituency as a result of such work. Education maintenance awards are relevant in this context. In Stoke-on-Trent there has been a great increase in the number of people continuing into the sixth form and taking A-levels, and, as a result, being able to consider higher education.
I do not know whether other hon. Members do as I do, but whenever I attend a school awards evening I ask a very pertinent question of the parents who are gathered proudly in the hall to see their children accept their awards: how many of those parents were in higher education? The report makes an important recommendation about the need for us to establish an infrastructure that allows for family history and encourages first-generation students into higher education. We must make it possible for the culture to change. Education maintenance awards can achieve that.
Stoke-on-Trent, like other pilot areas, has now been told that there will be a one-year extension for current year 11 students. We greatly welcome that, but the education maintenance awards were for a three-year pilot process, and it is critical that the analysis is completed as soon as possible. I want to be able to tell my constituents that the extension will not be just for a year. Instead, I want the programme to be rolled out in Stoke-on-Trent and, before too long, nationally. This is exactly the time of the parliamentary year when the Chancellor is considering future spending plans. Whatever long-term decisions are to be made about education maintenance awards, they must be an integral part of the agenda of not only the Department for
152WH
Education and Skills, but the Treasury. I want a decision as quickly as possible, because I want to be able to tell people that the awards will continue in Stoke-on-Trent and be extended to other parts of Staffordshire, where people are often in college side by side with students from Stoke-on-Trent. They cannot understand why someone who lives virtually across the road from them has an education maintenance award, but they do not.
In case the Minister is in any doubt on the subject, I can tell her that GCSE results are improving significantly in Stoke-on-Trent. The number of people staying on in school has increased from about 54 per cent. to 64 per cent., which I attribute to the difference made by education maintenance awards. I have been to every high school in my constituency and encouraged people to take up the awards. I have helped to make information available to parents, and I hope that the Government will make the awards a standard part of educational policy and closely consider the evidence and discussion about that in the Select Committee report.
The education debate is relevant to the agenda of the regional development agencies, which are to improve our local economy. I was pleased to see the report flag up the role of learning and skills councils and the way in which it is envisaged that they will work locally with the ConneXions agency and regional development agencies. We could give them greater impetus to bring about more of a cultural change in access to higher education, not only for students in school, but for mature students.
It is unfortunate that north Staffordshire has had a huge number of job losses in manufacturing, some of them in your constituency, Mr. Pike. Many men, often in their early or late 50s, who are highly skilled in engineering, have lost their jobs at the Michelin company. Some who are my constituents have told me that they would like access to higher education, and perhaps to go on to train as teachers and make their expertise of a lifetime in industry available to young people. However, they feel that the finance system means that they cannot contemplate higher education at that stage in their lives. Will the Minister consider ways in which learning and skills councils, with their new responsibilities, could do more to promote the entrance into higher education of more mature students as well? That could launch people who had unfortunately lost their jobs due to the problems in manufacturing into a new career, even at a late stage in their lives.
I must flag up another issue, although I know that time is short. We are pleased that Stoke-on-Trent is an excellence in cities area. The award is working well and its results have been transforming. It has encouraged our young people to think seriously about higher education. However, I must tell the Minister that the opportunity bursaries are something of a discrepancy in the higher education work undertaken through the excellence in cities awards.
I should give hon. Members a little geography lesson. Stoke-on-Trent and the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is not in my constituency, lie side by side. Someone who did not know the area would probably not know where the boundaries were. My constituents who go to college to do A-levels in their sixth form mainly attend the college of further education in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Like the colleges in Stoke-on-

153WH
Trent, it is an excellent educational establishment. About 415 of my constituents attend it, all of whom live in the excellence in cities area. When they are ready for higher education and want to attend Staffordshire university—where much work has been done to widen participation in education—or to Manchester Metropolitan university, they are told that, because of the way in which the regulations are applied, they are ineligible for opportunity bursaries.
I know, for example, of a young girl who lived in Tunstall and went to a local school. She attended the college at Newcastle and wanted to go on to Manchester Metropolitan university to study sport. However, she was not eligible for a bursary, not because of where she lived, but because of the college that she had attended. Newcastle college is not yet in an excellence in cities area—I hope that it soon will be, although that is not up to me—and it is only an observer college in Stoke-on-Trent's excellence in cities partnership. Its 415 students from my constituency are, therefore, ineligible for bursaries unless the universities that they choose are prepared to consider them for hardship awards.
Staffordshire university has made huge strides. It now allocates the joint fifth highest number of bursaries in the higher education sector; reflecting its successful record of allowing access to and widening participation by under-represented groups. It has had far too much demand for bursaries and simply cannot offer any more. If we are serious about getting more people into higher education, we must look at such obstacles in more detail and find ways of overcoming them.
Finally, I welcome the Select Committee's recommendation that something similar to the excellence in cities partnerships should be available to higher education establishments, allowing them the opportunity to access extra funding. I can envisage a new pilot area, linked to north Staffordshire, which would take on board the new medical university that is to be at Keele university. It could, perhaps, include Staffordshire, Keele and Manchester Metropolitan universities, and could attract people from the wider urban area, where there have been so many manufacturing job losses and where north Staffordshire partnership is so keen to promote access for all to higher education.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On the point made by the hon. Lady before she turned to bursaries, would she agree that it would be helpful if the Government were to initiate and to report on an audit of the number of university teachers and other teaching professionals who are now members of either regional governmental bodies or learning and skills councils? The Government talk of partnership, but those bodies do not make many appointments that would help to advance the hon. Lady's arguments. That would be a good area an which to make progress.
Ms Walley: I said at the outset that I wanted a joined-up agenda and links between the Department and the wider economy. The membership of bodies such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is critical if they are to have the necessary vision and to deliver the policies that will give people improved access to higher education so that they can then contribute to the area's
154WH
economic success. I believe that I have taken up more time than was allocated to me. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), may I say that Front-Bench Members are co-operating well and have indicated that they will catch my eye at 5 pm? That will assist hon. Members in working out—s;we are talking about higher education, after all—how much time is available.
3.44 pm
Paul Holmes: Since my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) issued his minority report, and since the general election, the Government have accepted that they have got it wrong on student debt, access and retention. In a different area, they have admitted that they botched the rushed introduction of AS-levels, which will also have adverse effects on access to higher education, although those effects may only be short term.
With the funding of students and further and higher education back in the melting pot, it is vital that the Government go back to the two reports. The evidence in them clearly shows that student debt and fear of debt are preventing full access by all social groups to higher education at undergraduate and postgraduate level and causing retention problems. That evidence has been further reinforced by the Cubie report in Scotland, and its implementation, and by the publishing of the Rees report on student finance in Wales.[Interruption.]
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): I shall suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. We will be back at four o'clock, which means that the timetable that I announced moves back by 15 minutes. I was tempting fate.
3.45 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): For everyone's guidance, I should make it clear that the vote in the House will add 15 minutes to our sitting.
Paul Holmes: Labour Back Benchers may well tell us that the problems of student debt, access and retention are exaggerated, that only 50 per cent. of students pay fees because of means-testing and that loans are cheap and easy to repay. That would be pre-emptive spin from Treasury Ministers which, like the Prime Minister, must have been told by plenty of voters during the recent election campaign that debt and fear of debt are major problems. I was certainly told that on the council estates of Chesterfield.
Let me gave some personal examples. In 1975, I was the first member of my family to go to university. When I was offered a place, my father was unemployed and my mother was a part-time home help. I doubt that I would have gone to university if I had thought that I would leave with a debt of between £10,000 and £14,000, which is the average range of debt now.

155WH
Twenty years later, I became a secondary school teacher and, for my last 12 years in teaching, I was a head of sixth form, or years 12 and 13. That involved guiding sixth form students through their higher education and job choices. The school at which I worked for the last 10 years took quite a number of children who were the first generation of their families to enter post-16 education, let alone higher education. It was difficult to persuade some to take that step. Some said that they had to go to work to contribute to the family budget. Some children of single parents said that they had to work to help with younger brothers and sisters. Other children and young adults had experienced family breakdown and could not rely on parental contributions, even if Government means-testing showed that their parents should contribute. For many reasons, people were put off higher education, and there was a noticeable increase in their numbers after the introduction of the 1997 regulations on paying fees and abolishing maintenance grants.
The Government must review the overwhelming body of evidence on the issue. If students are to be asked to pay for the benefits of higher education, they must pay post-graduation, while they are earning, and not up front, while they are studying. The Government could consider a system of taxation that has been tried and tested, for which the bureaucracy already exists and which is fair and related to ability to pay. A graduate who became a low-paid nurse, social worker or teacher would not then be required to pay back the same amount as a graduate who became a highly paid lawyer, accountant or company director. I have heard it rumoured that such a system exists—it is called income it.
Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a point of policy for me? The Liberal Democrats have made great play of proposing a small increase in income tax to deal with those problems. Are the penny on income tax and the financial structure that was put together during the general election designed to cater only for the current level of students, which is approximately 33 per cent. of the population? Would it also provide the financial capability to cater for a figure of 50 per cent., which is the Government target? If it is the former, do the Liberal Democrats share the Government's ambition, and how would they pay for it?
Paul Holmes: The costings that we set out in the election manifesto were given a clean bill of health by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, unlike those of the other two main parties. The figures made it crystal clear that the penny on income tax and the increase in income tax on high earners who earned more than £100,000 a year would pay for the proposals in our manifesto. If the Government undertake a review of the system—as they say they will—and there is a further increase, the way forward would have to be considered. However, it would have to be a genuine review.
Chris Grayling: What about the 50 per cent. target?
Paul Holmes: The 50 per cent. target is long-established, but I question how it will be funded. I also wonder how other aspects of the expansion of universities, such as teaching resources, will be funded.
156WH
As well as considering undergraduate education, and why people want to go to university or are put off from going, the Government must also consider postgraduate education. Universities are suffering shortages and crises. They are having difficulty recruiting university teachers because there are not enough postgraduate students, particularly in the sciences, and they are having problems with postgraduate access.
Earlier this week, I talked to students from the university of London. They told me that student friends of theirs had been denied further funding or loans because they were so much in debt with their previous student loans and tuition fees. Many people said that the problem would begin to bite in the next few years as the level of student debt rose from the average figure of between £10,000 and £14,000. Indeed, one or two such cases have been highlighted by the press during the past few months. If universities are suffering major problems in the recruitment and retention of postgraduate students as well as of undergraduates, the Government need to take action.
The Government need also to consider other aspects of higher education expansion. It must be funded properly if the present 33 per cent. level is to be maintained, let alone increased to 50 per cent. It cannot be done by robbing one side to pay the other. One cannot rob the students to fund higher education, and one cannot rob higher education to pay the students; if one tries, neither will be done satisfactorily. The past few years have seen a 36 per cent. drop in the funding per student. There are more students in the system, and less is being spent on their education.
The Taylor report showed that £900 million a year more is needed to provide adequate teaching resources. A crisis in staffing for universities and further education is imminent; unless the Government take action in advance rather than waiting until the crisis hits them, it will match the crisis that already exists in schools.
I shall now comment on some aspects of university education for disabled students. The last school where I taught was very good on social inclusion, and over the past 10 or 12 years I have taught a wide range of children with various disabilities in mainstream classes. The youngest of those children is now a second-year student at university. She is registered blind as a result of three astigmatisms. When she came to look for a university place, she found that many seemed to offer good facilities for disabled students. However, on visiting them she found that the facilities often fell short, although not, I hasten to add, at the university where she now studies. I know that organisations involved with various disabilities are very concerned about some aspects of that problem. Amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which come into force next September will tackle quite a few of those problems, but still leave some pockets untouched which need to be tackled by appropriate legislation.
Finance for disabled students also needs to be considered. They face the same rules on finance as other students, but they face extra difficulties. For example, the present system assumes that, these days, students will work their way through university. Disabled students find that much harder, although it depends on their disability. Some will not be able to get part-time work as easily as able-bodied students. Other disabilities, such as ME or multiple sclerosis, cause

157WH
problems with fatigue; such students cannot work many hours, and if they are working on their degree and supposedly working to pay their way through university, they will face a double bind.
Some of the rules on benefits and disability student allowances may cause problems for disabled students on part-time courses. Compared with able-bodied students, they may have difficulty moving in and out of the benefits system as they move between work and full-time education. It takes too long for the system to catch up with their movements. Many who receive the disabled student allowance find that the money paid to provide for extra facilities and transport requirements comes on stream only several months after their course has started, which creates major problems. A number of problems that specifically affect disabled students need separate attention, even though many of them are closely linked to the general issue of student finance.
4.9 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I am glad to be able to contribute to the debate. I think that the report produced by the Committee, at a time when I was not a member of it, is excellent, dealing with almost all the issues that need consideration.
Access to university, especially for young people and mature students from working-class backgrounds, is one of the issues about which, of all my other preoccupations as a Member of Parliament, I feel most strongly. I worked on it for the best part of 15 years before entering the House. My concern about the limitations of the United Kingdom's higher education system arose from my experience working in the United States in the late 1970s and observing how it had moved to mass participation in the university system, which in those days was unthinkable in the United Kingdom.
I welcome today's debate. It is interesting that it is the third debate in eight days on higher education. There is a temptation to repeat arguments that were well rehearsed last week, but I will avoid it and concentrate on one or two specifics. I do, however, want to return to the big issue of student finance before I finish.
I welcome the Government's achievements through the reform of student finance in their first term, and the prospect of further improvements to that. I welcome also the significant improvements in student achievement at GCSE and the prospect of greater achievement at A-level, as the years go by, with the reform introduced by curriculum 2000. I welcome too the prospect of the wider curriculum reform for 14 to 19year-olds flagged up in the recent White Paper on schools and its consultative document. The direction of Government policy is absolutely right, forming the essential foundation to enhance participation and achieve the target of getting 50 per cent. of young people into university or higher education by 2010.
The expansion of higher education between 1979 and 1997 was possible only because of the increased supply of young people with the necessary qualifications, brought about by the extension of comprehensive education in the 1960s and 1970s. That is an indisputable fact, and the Conservative party is in a state of denial if it continues to pretend that that was not a factor.
I turn to some specific points. I think that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) pointed out the distinction between the Government's responses to the
158WH
two reports. That concerns me, too. The Government's response to the
report on access is far sketchier than their response to the report on student retention, a fact that must be registered. The response to the report on retention was extremely detailed and helpful, but there was a tendency in both reports to exploit the division of responsibility for higher education between the Department, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and individual institutions, and perhaps to abdicate some responsibility from time to time. In the Government's response to the report on retention, there were numerous places—I counted six—where a particular recommendation was dismissed as a matter for individual institutions or for the HEFC.
I shall dwell on one point, although it is a tiny detail. In the report on retention, the Government responded to the issue of outreach activities and pastoral care to support participation by recommending that HEFC and individual institutions look carefully at the matter. HEFC's response in the same report says that that is a matter largely for individual institutions. In the response to the report on access, however, the Government accept that they are taking an initiative. The difficulty of having two reports to respond to has led to a slightly contradictory response by the Government. In general, the temptation must be resisted to say that something is not a matter for Government but the responsibility of the individual institutions or the HEFC. I would like to see a stronger and more interventionist role by the Government in setting firmer parameters and a clearer direction for the HEFC.
Having distinguished between the two reports, I should like briefly to dwell on some specifics. I welcome the introduction of both the new curriculum 2000 and the new Universities and Colleges Admissions Service tariff. I am concerned that some universities have dismissed curriculum 2000 and do not seem to have adjusted their admissions procedures. The report refers to officials in the Department working closely with individual institutions, but it would be helpful if the Minister, either today or in due course, were to make a brief statement. It is unacceptable that universities can ignore a major curriculum reform with its associated implications for the UCAS tariff system. The universities that are most dismissive of the new curriculum and tariff system are precisely those that are least concerned about widening their participation and social base.
Paul Holmes: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Universities are slow to accept new qualification systems such as the general national vocational qualification. However, does he accept that during the past 18 months it has been difficult for universities to accept qualifications such as AS-levels? Universities, like the teachers—among whom I include myself—who had to introduce those qualifications, did not know the system until the course had been taught for six months.
Mr. Chaytor: I do not accept that. I speak as the parent of a child who is at university and of another who is currently applying. My observation of their

159WH
experience of the AS-level system does not conform to the sense of crisis and chaos that the hon. Gentleman wants to create. However, I take the point that with such a major innovation in the curriculum there will be teething problems, which is something that the Government recognised earlier this year. The report on AS-levels issued in June was sensible, and there will be a further report in December to make more substantial recommendations to ease the implementation of curriculum 2000.
Turning to the question of the school year, it is a ludicrous anomaly that we have a university admissions system based on predicted, rather than achieved, grades. That is unsustainable, and I welcome the debate on that matter. There is a weight of evidence in favour of switching to a different structure for the school year that would allow students to get their grades and then apply, rather than applying in anticipation. That would be better for students and it would be more efficient in terms of administrative processes and costs. It would also be less time-consuming for individual universities to consider applications only from students with grades broadly in line with those required. The report refers to the Local Government Association consulting on changes to the school year to facilitate a new admissions system based on actual results, but the report does not say how long that will take. It would be helpful if the Minister were to comment on that matter.
I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on education maintenance allowances. It grieves my constituents that they are not eligible for EMAs. There is a significant increase in participation in EMA pilot areas, and I add my voice to those calling for an early decision on their extension. I hope that there will be an indication of that later this month in the pre-Budget report. I am not sure that any Government could afford or would be wise to make EMAs universal without dealing with the associated issue of child benefit. Until recently I was able to go to the post office every Monday and claim £27.75 on behalf of my two children who are over-18 and in full-time education. The woman in the queue next to me, whose children left school at 16, was unable to claim child benefit, which is a disgraceful anomaly. The question of the taxation of child benefit must be part of the equation in extending the principle of student support to all over-16 students.
The report refers to the postcode premium. I know that the chairman and members of the University Grants Committee felt strongly that that should be enhanced. The HEFC is evaluating the postcode premium's impact. However, it has not said how long the evaluation will take, and it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about that. It appears to be an effective way to widen participation, but as yet no firm conclusion has been drawn.
Reference is made to the importance of higher education institutions linking with further education colleges and working more closely with the newly formed local learning and skills councils and RDAs. Where that happens, it would be useful if the Government could publicise best practice. In my experience, the gaps between universities and local colleges and sixth forms are sometimes immense. In
160WH
contrast with their American counterparts, British universities have been very slow in building links with the potential suppliers of their students. Such links can be established at a much faster rate only if we have well-documented examples of the clustering of universities, colleges and schools.
On staffing, I endorse completely the comments of the Select Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), on the crucial importance of doing something about the salaries of university teachers. It is true that some university teachers are able to supplement their basic salary with significant earnings from various forms of consultancy work, but many are not. We need a major investigation into that, and it is not good enough for the Government to abdicate responsibility by saying that salary levels are a matter for individual institutions. We must have some commonality in the salary structure of those teaching in primary and secondary schools, in further education colleges and in universities, along with agreed differentials to reflect the nature of the work.
The access report touches rather briefly on the Oxbridge admissions systems. I do not want to rehearse the story of Laura Spence. On the way to vote in the House, 1 discussed the matter briefly with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), and it seems that our views differ slightly. I think that the Chancellor was absolutely right to put the matter at the top of the public agenda, and I welcome the report's conclusion that it is not sufficient for the Oxbridge universities merely to publicise the proportion of applicants from the state and independent sectors who are offered places. What we need is a breakdown of those figures college by college, and a clear statement on what the Oxbridge universities are going to do to improve those ratios.
Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor's unfortunate intervention in the Laura Spence affair resulted in a 2 per cent. fall in applications to Oxford from state schools? In light of that, does he think that it was a constructive intervention?
Mr. Chaytor: I am sorry, but that does not relate to figures on entries to Oxford and Cambridge between 1999 and 2000 which I was given in response to a parliamentary question of 5 March 2001. I urge the hon. Gentleman to check the latest statistics if he wishes to justify his prejudices further.
There has been huge progress in opening up the Oxbridge admissions system to students from state schools, and many people at Oxford and Cambridge are working very hard on this issue. The record of some colleges is hugely impressive.
However, in places offered to state school students, there is a 100 per cent. differential between the best and worst performing Cambridge university colleges, which have figures of 84 per cent. and 42 per cent. respectively. That is unacceptable. I shall resist the temptation to name and shame the worst performing college, but I endorse the following point from the access report:
"HEFC has noted that for any given total of A-level points, students from comprehensive schools obtain higher classes of degree than those from independent schools."
The admissions tutor of every Oxford and Cambridge college ought to consider that comment extremely carefully.

161WH
The Government need to take a more interventionist role. The information that Oxford and Cambridge now produce, which was put in the public domain for the first time in response to my parliamentary question of 3 April, is not in a standardised format and there is no requirement on Oxford and Cambridge to produce it. I hope that the Government will have further discussions with those two excellent universities to ensure that the information appears in a standardised format every year so that parents, students and Parliament can judge the progress that they are making.
Dr. Evan Harris: I hope to say more about the over-performance of comprehensive school students if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Pike.
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the number of offers made by various colleges at Cambridge has anything to do with the number of applications received by each college? If fewer people apply to certain colleges, it is hard for them to award places.
Mr. Chaytor: That has always been the standard excuse of people in the Oxbridge establishment who wish to deny the reality of the situation. I completely agree that students from state schools must be given greater encouragement to apply, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument as a justification for the appalling differentials that exist and the continuing inertia of many Oxbridge colleges in that regard.
I want to turn to a matter that is not covered in the report on access, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on it. In his excellent introduction, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said that many young people between the ages of 13 and 16 lose interest in education, which was cited as one of the key problems in enhancing access. That applies in the eight excellent comprehensive schools in my constituency of Bury, North, which have some of the best results to be found in any equivalent catchment area anywhere in the country. If it applies there, must it not apply to a far greater degree in those parts of the country that still do not have comprehensive education? What happens to youngsters in secondary modern schools in Kent, Buckinghamshire, Lincolnshire and the other 12 local authority areas that still remain fully selective? What possible chance is there for the 11-year-olds who fail this arbitrary test on a wet Wednesday some time in December to aspire to a university place when the system has deemed that they are to be rejected?
Chris Grayling: I offer the hon. Gentleman the example of the comparison between the secondary schools in the London borough of Merton, where I was shadow education spokesman, and the London boroughs of Kingston upon Thames and Sutton, which both have a grammar school education system. When one compares the non-grammar schools in Kingston and Sutton and the comprehensive high schools in the London borough of Merton, Merton comes off rather worse than the non-grammar schools in the selective areas
Mr. Chaytor: I cannot comment in detail on Merton and Kingston. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the research that was published last week by the National Foundation for Educational Research, which
162WH
compares the performance of selective and comprehensive systems, and to the research published this June by Professor Jesson from the university of York, which compares the overall performance of the two systems. I think that he will find there the evidence to challenge his traditional prejudices.
I turn to funding. It is the third time in eight days that we have had the opportunity to discuss this. To those who want an end to tuition fees—I can see how it could be hugely attractive to simply end them and roll them into the overall package of student support we must say that if they are abolished for full-time undergraduates, why should all other post-18 students still have to pay those fees?
An earlier reference to research from South Bank university suggested that there were complaints about debt from students from working-class backgrounds. The argument must be that they are the very students who do not pay tuition fees, so such fees cannot be a contributory factor to their perception of debt.
It is extremely important that we maintain a balanced and objective view of the role of tuition fees. It is fact, not spin, that almost 50 per cent. of people do not pay tuition fees. The means test that exists is crude, rough and ready, and tripartite in nature. A criticism of it might be that it stops at £33,000; we have no means test that is sensitive to higher earnings. However, for those who have been happy paying for their child's education from five to 18, at £15,000 a year for the most prestigious private schools or £5,000 for a bog standard one, paying £1,075 to continue that education is a bargain. That is an important point, and any proposals for reform of the student finance system, which the Government might produce in the next few weeks, should consider a more sensitive and extensive means test. Rather like the argument about council tax bands, the problem is not the bands, but the fact that the banding system stops at too low an income. A parent on £35,000 is paying the same fee for their 18-year-old as a parent on £350,000, and that is not necessarily right.
The question of loans has also arisen. The Liberal Democrats are slightly confused about that because they want to create the impression of crisis and chaos, and suggest that massive student debt is deterring students from going to university, but they are not really opposed to students paying a proportion of the cost of higher education through the loan. Questions must be asked. For most of the half century following the second world war, a system provided 100 per cent. grants—nonrepayable bursaries—and the proportion of young people from working-class backgrounds going to university hardly increased. That must be explained to the Liberal Democrats in particular: consider the relationship between cause and effect. The key issue about extending participation in higher education, increasing access and improving retention is not financial.
I draw the attention of hon. Members to the excellent article written by my hon. Friend the Minister—I think that it was in Tuesday's Guardian—where she not only provided an effective criticism of the absurd comments by the vice-chancellor of London university, but quoted figures on the estimated enhanced earnings of graduates during a lifetime. As I recall, the figure was £400,000. It will vary from person to person, but if graduates earn £400,000 extra during their lifetime, most people would

163WH
not think that a contribution of £12,000 to £15,000 to the cost of the university education that gave them the opportunity for enhanced earnings was unrealistic. Many hon. Members would agree if they thought about that seriously.
To extend participation, it is essential to increase the supply of young people with the necessary qualifications. That is the direction in which the Government are going, and I am delighted that the Select Committee report makes an important contribution to the debate on that policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. Five hon. Members are standing, so they have about eight minutes each if everyone is to be called.
4.34 pm
Chris Grayling: I start by commending the Select Committee for the amount of work that has gone into this report. Whatever the divisions that manifest themselves, a huge amount of time, effort and commitment goes into the creation of such detailed reports. The Committee has pointed out some important facts. It makes the point that retention in this country is good, but it offers some valuable thoughts about improving both access and retention within our universities. It also makes the important point that the income threshold for the repayment of student loans in England and Wales is too low and needs to be increased, particularly as so many of our public services lack the recruits that they need to perform in the future.
On reading the conclusions of the report, I feel that two issues are a little short changed. They are the funding infrastructure that surrounds higher education and the nature of higher education itself, as the Government look to push participation up from one third to around half of our young people. Some stresses are already apparent at the level of 33 per cent., as we widen participation. Those universities that exceed the Higher Education Funding Council targets for participation measures are at or near the bottom of university league tables. Where we manage to broaden participation we must ensure that it feeds up through the range of institutions.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) referred to the amount of money earned by graduates during their lifetimes. However, as we open up access to higher education, that differential is becoming smaller and smaller. It is far from clear that the undoubtedly significant salary premiums for those of 40, 50 and beyond, who are in the later stages of their careers, will be on offer for the much larger generation of graduates to follow.
It is important to recognise that the reasons for students pulling out of universities are not solely financial. Listening to the Liberal Democrats there is a tendency to believe that retention is just about money. I merely quote from Bernard Longden of Liverpool Hope university who said recently:
"Most students will tick the financial problems box, but when I talk to them this is often not the real reason. On closer questioning, students frequently admitted that they made a bad course decision. Getting into debt may simply compound an existing academic problem."
164WH
The financial infrastructure that surrounds our higher education is a crucial factor that needs to be at the heart of the debate about how we continue to expand access to higher education. My colleagues on the Select Committee rightly highlighted their belief that the Government are trying to play down the impact of their student finance policy on access and retention, and one of the reasons for their decision to produce a minority report was that they thought that the Committee had not got close enough to the heart of that problem.
I reiterate a point that I have made before. It cannot be right to saddle today's students with the extremely high levels of debt that they carry through into their professional lives, particularly given the challenges that many of them face in the early years of their careers as more and more graduates enter the job market. Those who have suffered from the new student funding regime are often not in the core group of 18 to 21-year-old students who leave school and go straight to university. Dennis Smith of the university of Ulster pointed out that higher education institutions in Northern Ireland have traditionally had a much higher proportion of applicants who are either mature or from previously under-represented groups. He added:
"These are the very types of applicants who have been most discouraged by the end of maintenance grants and the introduction of loans."
There is no doubt that the current structure has been a disincentive to many students. It must be addressed as part of the Government's forthcoming review of the whole structure of student financing. It is enormously important that the threshold issue is addressed as part of that structure. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that will be the case.
The Select Committee report highlights the fact that the consequence of students' funding difficulties—not with student tuition fees, but with the enormously high maintenance costs incurred during a three-year course—is that many work in part-time jobs to make ends meet. Two fifths of full-time undergraduates have term-time jobs for an average of 13 hours per week. The report wanted that figure to drop, so that the number of students who had to work to make ends meet and the number of hours that they had to work were reduced. However, how can that be done within the existing funding framework?
As the number of students expands towards the Government's goal of 50 per cent., we must address also how the institutions will deal financially with those growing numbers. Hon. Members have mentioned that pay for higher education teachers and lecturers is less than it should be, which makes it harder to attract the right calibre of teachers into our universities. That has an inevitable knock-on effect on the quality of education. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned the endowments that are available in universities in the United States. If we can create an environment in which our universities have their own financial strength, it will be easier to attract high quality research and, by definition, high quality teaching. If we want to expand our institutions, we must give them the financial strength that takes them beyond the simple year-in, year-out begging bowl to the HEFC and, ultimately, the public purse.
We must examine also the nature of the skills that we provide to young people in our universities. Year by year, we push more people into the jobs market with

165WH
conventional, degree-based educational skills. The consequence is that, in too many areas, we see graduate unemployment, while some graduates are employed in professional areas that are not ideally suited to their degree-level achievement. For example, media studies has seen the biggest increase in student applicants—up 21 per cent. However, unemployment rates for media studies graduates are second only to those of would-be designers.
There is a danger that if we push the number of students in higher education up to 50 per cent. without thinking through the nature of that education, we will end up with too many students doing particular courses. It is not that we do not want them in universities, but if we expand the numbers to that degree, we must consider carefully the nature of the education. What skills are we trying to deliver to our students, and how do we best ensure that our graduates have a wide enough range of skills to appeal to the employers of the future? If we do not answer those questions, the arguments about graduate tax and repayment of debt after university will become academic. Unless graduates can command a salary structure in professional life that reflects their skills, they will not be able to make the repayments or deal with their debt burden.
As we move towards that 50 per cent. target, we must be clear about the financial implications. We must be clear also about the higher education that our students will receive. We all share the aspiration of giving students from all walks of life the opportunity to benefit from higher education. There is no doubt about that. As we heard, the Governments led by the Conservatives for 18 years presided over a significant increase in student numbers. This Government are committed to increasing that number still further, so there has been cross-party consensus over a long period.
After reading its report, my message to the Select Committee, and to the Minister, is that we cannot just dive into this without understanding what having 50 per cent. of our young people in higher education will mean. What kind of skills will we deliver? What are the needs of the job market and the financial implications? I hope that the Select Committee will, in future reports, examine those aspects as well. Good work was undoubtedly done, but I still found myself searching the report for more evidence that those key issues had been taken into account. I look forward to hearing what the Select Committee has to say in future and what the Minister has to say about these issues today.
4.45 pm
Valerie Davey: I will be brief.
I congratulate the Government on taking up the report's recommendation to review student funding. Students in Bristol are certainly looking for something simpler and more focused on low-income families. They are not asking for a return to a full grants system. Let me tell the Liberal Democrats that they are not too impressed with the graduate levy in Scotland, the burden of which has not yet been experienced.
The Government are not examining funding alone. I congratulate them on the expansion, on removing the cap imposed by the former Tory Government and on recognising—as the hon. Member for Epsom arid Ewell (Chris Grayling) did not—that the anticipated need for
166WH
higher education skills over the next decade is for 1.7 million people. This country has an enormous need to make economic progress, which benefits everyone. So higher education is not just about the fulfilment of individuals or meeting the Government's target, but works for the economic benefit of the whole country.
I also congratulate the Government on their announcement last Tuesday of the excellence fellowship awards—a different way of helping young people. These will be awards for teachers in schools and further education operating within the excellence in cities and education action zones to allow them to take time out so that they will better understand the links to help their students into higher education. These awards are innovative, different and not focused solely on funding. Funding is important, but I echo other hon. Members in acknowledging that, under the full grant system, the percentage of students going into higher education from low-income backgrounds was extremely low. As the total numbers entering higher education—under whatever system of funding—increased, the percentage of students from low-income families remained well below 20 per cent.
I want to focus on the university of Bristol, whose intake of students from low-income backgrounds is low. Not having made the headway that it anticipated, the university is responding to the challenge and now has a strategy for widening participation. The university's new vice-chancellor, Eric Thomas, wants to ensure greater involvement with the educational life of the city and its surrounding areas. The university wants to bring in more young people from the state sector. It has a whole tranche of ideas and experience.
I particularly congratulate the students union for sending students into local secondary schools to act as mentors and establish groups to involve pupils in sport, art, music and so forth. The pupils are brought on to the campus at a much earlier age than years 11 and 12. Even 12 and 13-year-olds are gaining an understanding of how their city's university forms part of the total educational experience in which they and their families can take part.
Summer schools have proved remarkably popular in the last few years. In fact, they were oversubscribed last year by 10:1. The Government and the Sutton trust have rightly encouraged them, and we shall continue working together. There are also summer work programmes for students before they start their first year. There is provision for disabled students. Taking up an earlier theme, we need to make special provision for those with a disability. In Bristol, there is particular provision for those with a hearing impairment.
Perhaps most important, the university is considering much more carefully students' backgrounds, Admissions tutors now consider schools and their average A-level results. Then they look for students who have achieved more than that. If two A passes and a B is the standard result, tutors might look for the student who not only achieves three A passes but does more extra-curricular activities.
It is important that Bristol, too, reflects the experience described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Those who come from state sector schools with lower than average attainment on entry do equally well if not better than those with higher academic achievements.

167WH
As we have heard, the Select Committee went to America. One university that we visited was Northeastern university in Boston. Indeed, I was able to link its admissions tutors with those of Bristol, which they then visited. The university in Boston is interesting. It could be described as the workers education university, because it started when people had to work and study; there was no way that students could be full-time. That has been turned into a virtuous circle: the links with working in the city of Boston have proved so beneficial that, even though there is more financial backing for students now, that tradition has been maintained.
Perhaps the Select Committee should have considered South Africa—I am not putting in a bid for it to go there now, but I may do so later. Earlier this week, The Guardian drew my attention to the university of the Witwatersrand—hon. Members must forgive my pronunciation—in Johannesburg. I think that it is generally known as Wits university. Let us consider the change that has taken place there. The university tried to break down barriers. In the 1990s, only 14 per cent. of its students were black; now, 65 per cent. are black. That change is thanks largely to the former vice-chancellor, Colin Bundy. Indeed, I recommend that the Department contacts him. He is only down the road now, as the new head of the London university School of Oriental and African Studies. Had the Select Committee known about Mr. Bundy, we would certainly have asked him to give evidence. I trust that the Government will make use of his undoubted experience. Among other things, the university admitted students whose attainment was too low in the first instance for them to go to university in the normal way. They followed a two-year foundation course and then moved to year two of their degree.
There is experience and examples of best practice throughout the world that we should consider. I shall finish, because I know that other students want to speak—[Interruption.]I apologise, Mr. Pike. I was back in teacher or university mode.
Brenda Gourley, the vice-chancellor designate of the Open university, has challenged us all to think about the purpose of university. In a recent article, she quoted the UNESCO declaration for higher education, which is particularly relevant. She said that higher education is
"for citizenship and active participation in society, with a worldwide vision, for endogenous capacity building. for the consolidation of human rights, sustainable development, democracy and peace, in a context of justice—
I trust that in all our development of higher education we shall seek to ensure that that is writ large in the hearts and minds not only of vice-chancellors but of all students who go to our universities
4.54 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I agree that retention was well covered in the report, which makes useful suggestions. The problem of students dropping out because of debt is a real one, but the report does not adequately cover the issue of standards.
The number of people entering higher education has increased dramatically over the past 20 years. I recognise the Government's intention to increase the
168WH
number of students, but having more people in higher education will not in itself support Britain's manufacturing and service industries. If students are ill suited to their courses, more students doing courses will not necessarily benefit students. In some other countries, only highly qualified school leavers are accepted as students and they are heavily tested at the end of their first year—in effect, a reverse retention policy. We, on the other hand, push ahead with trying to get more students who, once they are enrolled, remain where they are, whether or not the course is suited to their needs. The college will want them to stay for funding reasons and may have offered them a second-choice place on the basis of what it, rather than the student, wants. How do the Government propose to deal with those concerns?
The reports also have good ideas on encouraging access outreach schemes. A review of professional management practices is important. It is easy to blame a lack of access on demographic divisions and so on, but it is important that that is done only after the Government are confident that access for poorer and ethnic minority students is properly managed from the university's point of view. I was pleased by the acknowledgement of quotas as inappropriate because they all too often encourage discrimination.
The view that access is often just as much a problem in rural areas as in inner cities is correct. In cities, universities are probably more closely situated to potential students, and if they have crèche facilities, access for mothers is greatly enhanced. However, in rural areas—particularly those such as my constituency, which has no university and where significant distances must be covered to reach higher education institutions—access can be a real problem. In my constituency, many mature students, particularly mothers, tend to do the first year of their degree at the Huntingdon regional college and then go on to university. I would like our FE colleges to be increasingly recognised, particularly in terms of funding, which normally falls well behind that of schools.
A further concern is about the needs of businesses. Many feel that our education system does not cater adequately for them. Many bright but non-academic young people would be better served by a decent apprenticeship system. Many manufacturing companies in my constituency have said that they are unable to recruit 16-year-olds for high-level apprenticeships and, importantly, that they are blocked from getting into local schools to talk about these opportunities. The vocational A-level is generally seen as not much use and is poorly recognised by businesses. How will the Government improve access in a way that helps our business sector rather than hinders it further?
There should always be a role for academic excellence, but we need to break down the barriers for young people who want to go into vocational higher education. I speak from experience because I undertook a modular degree at a polytechnic and was impressed by how it could be moulded to individual time and career requirements. Will the Government get our business and higher education working together in a better way?
4.59 pm
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I was proud to be a member of the Select Committee that produced the two reports. As the Chairman indicated, we presented ourselves with an enormous task: to get not a quart but two gallons into a pint pot. Thus, it was right that we should focus in the way that we did.
I came to the Select Committee with views from both ends of the telescope, one might say, having spent 12 years as the editor of a magazine—when I had close contacts with a range of academics—and nearly 20 years as a part-time tutor with the Open university. I will not hide the fact that those experiences colour my contribution to the Select Committee and what. I want to say today.
In the context of part-time students, another strong influence has been my experience in further education, which is an increasingly important means of delivering higher education. In my constituency, which does not have a university—a sad decision was made in the 1960s not to take that up—the Blackpool and Fylde college, which is a beacon further education college of excellence, has close links with Lancaster university and the university of Central Lancashire, which is key to developing a higher education strategy.
I shall be brief and concentrate on some of the key issues that have been mentioned: student finance and access. A great deal of ink—and a certain amount of blood—has been used in writing about Oxbridge interviews and some of the other issues that have been well ventilated today. I have an increasing sense of frustration, which I know is shared by former students of mine who have contacted me and by Members of the House, that the debate is not and should not be about Oxbridge only. Hundreds of thousands of students are not having their education delivered by the Oxbridge system, and it is to them that I want to address what I say today.
The Government response to the report's recommendations about access was encouraging. I was particularly pleased that the Government took up our point about higher education action zones. What my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) said about the latest initiative is true. Access is not just about interviews or even about getting grades. What was said about the UCAS tariffs was absolutely right. There are universities that take an ostrich-like attitude towards the tariff regime. They must be encouraged to be more positive about it, and we could all learn from the debate on A and AS-levels about the value of other qualifications, such as the international baccalaureate.
I am convinced that we must have an integrated strategy. We heard today about the value of educational maintenance allowances, but we must think about how we carry that through into opportunity bursaries. We need an integrated approach, so that a 16 or 17-year-old from a single-parent family or a Blackpool council estate who has an education maintenance allowance and is encouraged by that to go into higher education will have the opportunity to do so by way of a bursary or further funding. I will discuss later some ways in which we might be able to do that.
170WH
There has been much discussion about portability, which is an essential aspect of higher education. There is a need for lifelong learning: part-time and mature students, because of their work or the conditions in which they find themselves, want and need to be able to drop in and out of education. The Select Committee was concerned that universities should take that point on board. I wish to give a plug for my previous employer, the Open university. It has shown the way by incorporating previous qualifications—from further education, for example—as part of the credit for a university course and by demonstrating flexibility. That is particularly important for part-timers.
I entirely agree with what was said about access for disabled students. It is not just a matter of wheelchair access; there is a range of related issues. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I attended the European access network conference in Santiago de Compostela 18 months ago. We heard a fascinating presentation from the universities of Plymouth and of Central Lancashire, which is on my doorstep, about how awareness is being raised in those universities and access is an issue for all staff, not just for disability officers.
I want to say something about the poor bloody infantry: the teachers and lecturers in universities. All the time in the world can be spent getting the access process right, but if students go into educational institutions where staff are de-motivated, the emphasis on teaching is not strong enough, there is no proper salary progression and there are demographic problems, we will do them no service whatever. I am glad that things are moving in the right direction, by means of the Government initiatives that have been mentioned. However, it is important that we do more.
We must reassess the balance between teaching and research and the research assessment exercise. The witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee had some harsh things to say about the way that the RAE works. The HEFC should seriously consider incorporating a teaching quality assessment exercise in the RAE exercise. If HEFC cannot or is not prepared to do that, I hope that the Minister will not be shy about taking up the challenge herself, because it is a crucial part of the process. The self-righteous and self-regarding views of those in the research institutions of some of the Russell group universities are deeply unhelpful and discouraging.
As to funding, I agree with Opposition Members who said that the issue concerns not just student funding but university funding. We need to ensure that direct Govt settlements for the academic sector are augmented by other means. The Select Committee found some good examples in the United States, such as a system of corporate and individual tax breaks and a form of bond structure for universities. As the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) rightly said, universities in this country need to be more entrepreneurial in building up their alumni funding.
I come inevitably to the issue of student finance. The Government are carrying out a student review. What is almost more important than having a wide system of maintenance grants or loans is that the level at which either payment of full grant or the repayment of loans is set must not deter people from non-traditional

171WH
backgrounds from applying. It may come as a surprise to some hon. Members, but I do not think that the graduate tax will solve everything and be a universal panacea. With the greater labour market mobility, graduate income levels falling and people increasingly becoming self-employed, we need to be careful that the Government do not get into the same mess as the Child Support Agency when trying to collect money from self-employed people.
If we are to go for the expansion of funding in higher and further education, we need to consider other sources of funding. We do not necessarily need to follow the Liberal Democrats' loaves-and-fishes policy, with a penny on income tax providing for all eventual circumstances, but core funding needs to be examined. We should also consider other ways of funding. If the Minister would care to cast her eye over The Times Educational Supplement for last Friday, she would see that I have returned to a proposal to which I referred on a couple of other occasions, for a leisure technology levy, which I estimate would raise up to £200 million. If that money were applied tomorrow to the opportunity bursaries system, it would increase the number of opportunity bursaries by, I estimate, about 500 per cent.
Before the Minister endorses the scheme, she needs to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principles of hypothecation and keeping money in the system. A more general point is involved whether we opt for that or anything else. Whatever its source, we do not want funding raised for higher education in the 21st century to suffer the same fate as road tax suffered in the 20th century. If we believe in lifelong learning and being a friend to access from nontraditional areas, which as a Government we should, we must accept the principles behind that. If we will the ends, we must also will the means.
I am proud to have been part of the team that produced the two reports. I believe that they will bear revisiting and are entirely relevant. We should consider higher education in terms not only of the economic importance that we all know that it possesses for our future as a nation, but of the sense of awareness, connection and cultivation of the humane and liberal civilised values that we all share, to which E. M. Forster referred. The events of 11 September have shown us the value of higher education and access to it, which I believe everyone in the Chamber shares as an objective.
5.12 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I certainly enjoyed my time on the Committee producing the report and, as I was often in a minority of one, I thank fellow Committee members for their patience. It was enjoyable partly because I enjoy an argument, and we heard some interesting thoughts. In the event of disagreements and strong arguments, a huge load falls on the Clerks to the Committee, as is evident from the extensive amount of Roman numerals in the report, which is a good way to judge how many divisions were involved. I pay tribute to them, and, like the Chairman, to the specialist advisers, who had to steer a careful course.
I issued a minority report to the access report, parts of which were, I accept, supported by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and Mr. Nick St. Aubyn. I did
172WH
so not because I disagreed with the contents of the report, apart from paragraph 109. I agreed with everything that was in the report and, indeed, worked hard to make it what it was. However, a significant omission on the question of student funding was the problem. We were greatly aided in the matter by many expert witnesses, but I mention one in particular, Professor Maggie Woodrow, who, sadly, recently died. She was a leading expert, perhaps the leading expert, on access to universities, as head of the European Access Network. Both she as a personality and her expertise will be greatly missed, and I pay tribute to her.
Because of the time, I cannot go through the details of my minority report, but I commend to hon. Members page 1 of the report, which deals with the maintenance grant aspect. I have already drawn attention to the South Bank university research, which showed the significant problem caused by the abolition of maintenance grants, and I cited evidence that the Cubie committee collected on the matter.
Dr. John Brennan, director of further education development at the Association of Colleges, told the Sub-Committee:
"If we are interested in getting many more young people into higher education... we are seeking to draw into the group those for whom debt aversion is a serious issue, and … you need a system which has an element of loan and an element of grant in it, and grants specifically targeted upon those who are coming from the poorest backgrounds and face the biggest difficulties."
He argued in favour of a change from the current smaller system of opportunity bursaries. The conclusion that I put to the Committee was that the report should state:
"We are convinced of the Government's determination and sincerity in tackling the under-representation of the low-income groups in Higher Education, but the balance of evidence suggests that the abolition of maintenance grants, in the context of the current objective of expanding Higher Education and increasing participation, has had a deleterious effect on access and will continue to do so. We welcome the fact that the Government appears to have recognised this by the introduction of a relatively small number of Opportunity Bursaries and additional provisions for mature students. However, restoration of the maintenance grants would appear to be a significant part of the overall solution to under-participation and we urge the Government to take this step."
The Government have effectively endorsed that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) might have supported it if he believed that the success of education maintenance allowances could be reproduced by maintenance grants. It was an achievement of a Select Committee to be less critical of the Government than the Government were of themselves.
I should like to turn briefly to the Oxbridge issue, as I represent Oxford, West and Abingdon. I can report that there is still enduring bitterness about the unfair way in which people felt they were attacked. People such as Dr Ajit Lalvani, a fellow of Magdalen college and one of the world experts on tuberculosis, still cannot believe that he was accused of "old school tie" practices. Professor John Bell, the Nuffield professor of medicine, and Dr. John Stein, who is an expert in finding new techniques to treat autistic children, were appalled at the suggestion of an old boys network. A huge amount of

173WH
evidence shows that the attack by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was misplaced, and it can be found in the minutes of the deliberations. We heard no evidence whatever, except assertions by the Minister, that there was any substance in the attack by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, the report states:
"Figures released by Oxford University and quoted in The Guardian on 30th January 2001, showed that while the great majority of all entrants gained three A grades at A-level, 23 per cent. of comprehensive pupils were admitted with slightly lower grades, compared to only 17.2 per cent. from independent schools.
For every 100 places Oxford colleges typically make 120 offers, expecting 80 applicants to achieve their grades. It was in the 20 per cent. of places from candidates who narrowly missed three As or 2 As and a B that Oxford has been giving comprehensive students the benefit of the doubt.
So, in fact, rather than discriminating in favour of independent school pupils, the evidence suggests that at Oxford, if anything, the bias is the other way."
It would have been reasonable for the Committee to have accepted that the Chancellor's remarks may have been true in previous years, when the success rate—offer compared with application—was lower for comprehensive students than other students. While that may have been true then, there is no evidence to suggest, as success rates are now higher for comprehensive students than independent school students, that that is the case now.
There is a huge amount in the reports that one can support. It was a pity that the Government did not feel able to give a detailed response to the recommendations of the access report. Indeed, in terms of post-qualification application and the increased use of post code premiums as a way of drawing people into higher education and encouraging universities to do so to a greater extent, the Government merely note such activity. It is time for the Government to lead in policy terms on those issues. I hope that the Minister will shortly give us cause for comfort in that regard.
5.18 pm
Mr. David Rendel: This has been an interesting debate, and it is good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) as most of us can see that his minority report got it right from the start. In his opening remarks, the Select Committee Chairman had the good grace to make it clear that much of the evidence that has appeared since the minority report was produced has backed up what my hon. Friend said at the time, and has told more firmly in favour of the policy of abolishing tuition fees and restoring grants.
Sadly, I was able to attend only part of the Conservative Opposition day debate on Tuesday because of a hearing of the Select Committee on Procedure, in which I was involved at the same time. However, my hon. Friends have drawn my attention to a rather intriguing comment made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education during that debate, while discussing the evidence that the Committee had heard. He said:
"Most of the evidence showed that there was a percentage of students from very poor backgrounds who were put off by the fear of debt and by the incomprehensibility of the system, which meant that they had to go to five different pots of money."—[Official Report,6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 144.]
174WH
That is precisely the point that the Liberal Democrats made since changes following the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. It is precisely the point that we made and won in the Scottish Parliament. It is precisely the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon when he served on the Committee. It is precisely the point made in the Rees report, which was commissioned by the Welsh Assembly, and it is precisely the point that I made during our Opposition Day debate on student finance two weeks ago. I said:
"It does not matter whether the fear of debt is soundly based; it is the fear itself that produces the disincentive. "—[Official Report,25 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 429.]
That answers the earlier point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor).
It is interesting that when the Committee took evidence from a group—only one group gave evidence on this matter—who had decided not to go to university and from their parents, rather than dons or existing students, the group said that the fear of debt was the greatest factor that put them off university. It is no surprise that the Chairman of the Committee admits that most of the evidence heard by the Committee shows that debt aversion—whether valid or not—is a real problem. Fear of debt is most likely to deter the people who need the greatest encouragement. Why on earth did the two reports, particularly the access report, not reflect that adequately? Why did my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon have to produce his own minority report that raised the problem of fear of debt?
When the Committee should have acted like a lion and savaged the Government's policies, it acted like a lamb. As it produced the reports just before a general election, one must wonder whether that was the significant factor. The job of Select Committees—I differ from the Chairman on this point—even in the year before an election is to hold the Government to account, not to wimp out in the face of the voters.
The Government can also be criticised. Why did we have to wait until the Government
"got the collywobbles…after a successful campaign by the Liberal Democrats during the election"—[Official Report,6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 144.]
before they took any action on the matter? In case any hon. Members think that it is only the Liberal Democrats that claim credit for the Government's change of mind, that quote comes directly from the speech of the Chairman of the Select Committee last Tuesday. He admitted that the Government had the collywobbles. The Liberal Democrats' campaign caused that, and forced the change of mind.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's review. It is better late than never. However, the review is secretive and internal, and it would be more democratic and more likely to lead to the correct changes if it were more open, transparent and inclusive. I ask the Minister to give us further details of the review.
Further matters have arisen since the publication of the report. There has been a change of Secretary of State. Initially, that looked to be a way of introducing top-up fees. After all, the previous Secretary of State famously said, "There will be no top-up fees while I am Secretary of State, but I will not be Secretary of State for

175WH
ever." He was right about that. His parting shot was to ensure that his Ministers publicly ruled out any changes during the next Parliament, and I welcome that. However, instead of a pledge on just top-up fees, I ask the Minister to go further and confirm that whatever comes out of the review, all tuition fees will be abolished. That is, after all, the benchmark by which the review will be judged. If tuition fees are left in place following the review, people throughout the country will think that the review has failed.
The second occurrence since the publication of the Select Committee reports is the release of the Rees report on student finance, which was commissioned by the Welsh Assembly. I congratulate my colleagues in the Assembly on ensuring that the review occurred, and I welcome many of the recommendations. Not the least of its recommendations is that tuition fees should be abolished throughout the United Kingdom, and that simplified maintenance grants should be reinstated. It is notable that the Rees report approaches student support in further and higher education as a single issue, rather than as two mutually exclusive matters. Can the Committee investigate ways in which student support in further and higher education might be more effectively integrated?
Finally, I wish briefly to return to the most important change that has taken place since the publication of the two reports, which is the announcement of the Government's review. That is good news, but there will be disillusionment with the Government among a large and influential section of the population if the review fails to lead to substantial changes to the present system.
The Select Committee should take the earliest opportunity to fill the glaring gap in the reports by recommending that the Government make the changes that are so clearly supported by the evidence that it has heard. I hope that, on this occasion, the Government will listen to those recommendations.
5.25 pm
Alistair Burt: I, too, enjoyed reading the deliberations of the Committee. I thank everyone who has played a role, including the people who guide the Committee and the witnesses who appear before it. Its deliberations were thorough and detailed, and 10 minutes is not long enough to pay proper justice to them.
I share the disappointment that has been expressed that, although the Government's response with regard to the issue of retention was straightforward, their response with regard to the matter of access was not. When those responses are compared, a great contrast is apparent. I hope that the Government will take steps not to make that mistake again.
I also hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has taken on board the criticism that the Committee, which he chaired, was not sufficiently robust in hounding the Government. However, in the debate, he did bite the ankles of the Minister when he reminded her that she should conduct her own review of student finance, rather than accept the Treasury review. That point was made by several hon. Members of my party, and perhaps more will be said about it.
176WH
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) in praising the contribution that was made to the Committee by Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, the former Member for Guildford. I hope that he will be able to read the Committee's deliberations, so that he can learn that his brave report and its proposals were welcomed. I wish to highlight two of his achievements: first, he brought to the Committee's attention the importance of the gap year and emphasised how it can be of benefit to a young person who is planning to enter higher education: and secondly, he took up the Laura Spence issue in a laudable manner. With regard to that issue, I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that serious and unfair damage was done to people who were trying hard to broaden access. It is an issue that readily leads to old prejudices and chips on the shoulder coming to the fore. If education is to make progress in the British political system in the current century, some of those prejudices must be rejected—and hon. Members should set an example by rejecting them immediately. However, the hon. Gentleman was too generous to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: he knew what he was doing when he raised the issue.
A number of important subjects have been raised, and I agree with the sentiments expressed in the deliberations of the Committee in hoping that they will be taken forward, and that the Government will focus on them. Portability is one such subject: it should be examined because it is important to assist students who wish to transfer to a different course.
Further education is another important subject, and I am pleased that attention has been paid to it by several hon. Members during the deliberations of the Committee, and in this debate. It is essential that, by focussing on the important subject of higher education, further education does not get squeezed. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) made that point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who emphasised how important it is that students choose the right course. I will refer to that matter when I address the subject of access.
I also agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), and I am eager to find out how the introduction of education maintenance awards proceeds. That is an exciting development. The majority of hon. Members understand that the key issue in British education is not access at the top. The key project is to help the youngsters who currently have few inspirations, little aspiration and not enough hope. Although tremendous work is being done in that area, more needs to be done, and anything that can be done to ensure that such youngsters have higher aspirations is good news. I am pleased that efforts are being made to encourage teachers to retain that connection with their own higher education institution, because teachers may be the only people in a community with experience of higher education who are able to communicate that to their pupils.
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and others in terms of staffing. We must be careful that higher education institutions that are student-rich but research-poor do not suffer because of that. A number of hon. Members have made reference to that. It is a difficult balance to

177WH
achieve, but we must ensure that we value staff and that they have the resources to do the job—particularly in pastoral and outreach care, if they are to look after those who may be most vulnerable to the changes that higher education brings to them.
On access, the Government have announced their target, which is that 50 per cent. of those aged 18 to 30 should enter higher education by the end of this decade. Our aim is more ambitious and widely drawn. We expanded higher education markedly when we were last in office, from a system designed for an elite of one in eight of the population to a more open system where one in three could expect to benefit both for themselves and for the country. As I said recently on the Floor of the House—no quota, no fuss, just progress.
Higher education should be open and accessible to all so that everybody can benefit from it. Quality need not drop with expansion, but it is essential that quality remains high because access to higher education is not the only issue facing universities in the UK. Higher education is not the only option for those with talent and ability. At present, too many of them are being failed long before they even have the chance to consider what they should do with their lives. The target for higher education should not act as a smokescreen to disguise the real scandal of our education system, which is the ultimate denial of access to many of our children almost from the first day they walk into a classroom.
On leaving school, a child should have full knowledge of what courses are available in both HE and FE and an understanding of what is likely to be best for them in terms of their career choice. They should know where each qualification might lead, the path from one level of qualification to the next and where the workplace fits in if part-time study is a sensible option. They should know what financial options are available and how they intend to cope with the new demands that will be made upon them. They should know how future employers honestly regard each qualification, because they do not regard them all in the same light. If they have not made up their mind what they want to do, they should know that education purely for its own sake has value, as they consider what they want to do with the years that lie ahead.
Based on that, school-leavers will choose what is best for them, not what somebody else may want them to do in order either to fulfil a quota or to ensure that an institution gets funds simply because a place is filled. Further education will not risk being downgraded, as that sector may be the right one for those with talents and abilities. We must not let our aspirations for higher education risk blunting the developing edge of vibrant further education courses. We must make it clear that people can move from sector to sector and that age is no barrier to subsequent movement. We must recognise that the nature of students has changed during the past 20 years. Above all, we must make it clear that there is true parity of esteem between the vocational and the academic and that student finance will be, as far as possible, a help and not a hindrance.
As the Minister might expect, I shall end on student finance. As someone who has read the reports rather than was part of the Committee, it is clear that there was already evidence emerging that the financial arrangements for students have a key part to play in both access and retention. Evidence that has emerged
178WH
since the publication of the reports makes that even more stark. I mentioned some of that evidence in the recent debate. The Government cannot possibly deny the importance of student finance in relation to debt and students' working hours outside their studies.
The complexity of the system makes a difference to whether people apply in the first place. The system is complex. To illustrate the Minister's difficulties, there are widely differing opinions of it to be considered. Is it complex, but not too difficult to understand once people get on top of it, as Baroness Blackstone described it, or is it a nightmare, which is how Baroness Ashton described it recently in the House of Lords? Which is it? There is plenty of evidence, quoted several times, of the difficulties that the financial arrangements have caused and for that reason I, too, challenge the Minister to open up the internal review that she has already started.
Will the Minister publicly seek the comments of at least Universities UK, the Association of Colleges, the National Union of Students. the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the Association of University Teachers, the Standing Conference of Principals, the Student Loans Company and Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, before the results of her review are published, so that they can comment before proposals come forward? Will she place their submissions in the Library? Will she put in the Library the submissions that she has already received from her colleagues in Government as part of the internal review so that we, and the public, can see the standards by which the review is being judged? Will she publish the terms of the inquiry towards which she is working? Finally, will she take the chance to clear up a mystery, namely, what is her Department's definition of higher education? 1 hope that she will be able to do so. Yesterday, Baroness Ashton gave us some hope when she said that she would consult. I hope that the hon. Lady will take the opportunity to tell us the same thing now.
5.35 pm
(Margaret Hodge): First, I congratulate the Chairman and all members of the Committee. The two reports and the debate that we have had today demonstrate the best of Select Committee processes. It has been an informed debate if, perhaps, a little vigorous. Nevertheless, it has given us an opportunity to debate something that is of key importance to the Government and to all of us who represent the members of our community.
I agree with what the Chairman said about the importance of university in our lives, not only for economic reasons, but also for the purposes of social inclusion. That is at the heart of the Government's commitment to widening participation. We wish to widen participation and we shall maintain quality. I am incredibly fed up with the constant attacks on the grounds that widening participation will reduce quality. It will not, and we shall ensure, through all our quality assurance mechanisms, that quality is maintained. It is crucial, for economic and social reasons, to widen opportunity. Part of the productivity problem in this country is due to the skills gap. America has a much higher participation rate in university than we do in the United Kingdom—although it does also have a much higher drop-out rate. Of the new jobs that will be created

179WH
in the next decade, 1.7 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) said, will require the sort of skills that can be acquired only through higher education.
I should like to respond to some of the issues that have been raised, rather than make a statement of Government policy. A number of people have spoken about prior attainment levels. Those have been mentioned in every debate in recent weeks as being crucial to extending participation in higher education. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) talked about educational maintenance allowances. They are successful and are increasing participation by 5 per cent. We must now consider, in the context of the comprehensive spending review, whether they are the best-targeted way of achieving that 5 per cent. increase. They are the most effective instrument that we have found to increase participation.
Equally important is our agenda for those aged 14 to 19. That includes our approach to vocational qualifications, which a number of speakers mentioned, the Connexions service, which was alluded to, and the excellence challenge programme.
The hon. Members for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) arid my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North, for Huddersfield, and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden)—with apologies if I have left anyone out—talked about the importance of funding the universities. I agree with them. We have to discuss the balance between our investment in the university infrastructure and that in student funding.
We have not done badly with an 18 per cent., £1.7 billion increase in spending and investment in higher education. I would say to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) that this year, for the first time in a decade, we have increased the unit of resourcing, and therefore reversed the year by year decline that happened under the previous Government.
We have also put an additional £300 million into teaching over the three-year period. That is very important in order to address a number of the issues that have been mentioned. I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that it is underfunded, but I hope that he will accept that that is due to the underfunding by the previous Government. We got expansion at the expense of funding. but that was no way to go forward.
I am delighted that so many hon. Members have welcomed the excellence fellowship awards that were announced yesterday. They represent a mechanism through which we can build links between schools and universities. There are sufficient jobs; we should not worry, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has suggested, that the increased number of people who go through higher education will not have opportunities to work.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) that we are ensuring that the qualifications offered in our higher education sector are relevant to the world of work. The foundation degrees, which we launched this year, have been extremely well received,
180WH
with 85 per cent. take-up of places in the first cohort that we have examined. They were designed by business in collaboration with the higher education institutions to meet the needs of the business community. Much of what we offer may not be at degree level, but at sub-degree level, and take the form of HNDs and HNCs. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome that.
Several hon. Members expressed concerns about retention, with which we shall need to deal more as we go along. As we extend participation, the cohort of students will change. It will become all-important to deal with retention and to ensure that people do the right courses, are properly supported and have the skills to develop. However, we have the best record on graduation and the second-best record on retention among OECD countries.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Margaret Hodge: No, I shall carry on because I have only five minutes left.
I want to talk a little about social class and access. We acknowledge that higher education expanded under the previous Conservative Government, but I hope that the Opposition will acknowledge that they did not manage to break the inability of people from lower socioeconomic groups to access higher education. That is the much tougher challenge that we face and want to takeup.
On Oxbridge, I hope that all hon. Members will accept that there is an issue. Some 52 per cent. of Oxbridge entrants have three A passes at A-level, but the figure for entrants with three A passes at A-level across the university sector is 65 per cent. There is a disparity, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer properly raised the issue. We want to ensure that more people from state schools have access to universities. The issue is perhaps partly about whether they apply. The aspiration funding that we have put in place will tackle that, but we need to deal with a range of issues to ensure equality of access to some of our best institutions, and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is naive if he thinks otherwise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North talked about the UCAS tariff scheme. We are doing a lot of work on that, and I shall write to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South about what we are doing to ensure that universities consider the issue seriously.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West and for Blackpool, South mentioned disability. Some hon. Members will know that I was previously Minister for Disabled People, and 1 like to think that the Government moved the agenda forward with allowances for part-time disabled students and postgraduates and through legislation. I will be happy for the hon. Member for Chesterfield to write to me about where he thinks the gap in the legislation is.
Higher and further education is vital, and there are 150,000 HE students in FE. It is crucial that we create strategic partnerships between the FE and HE sectors and tackle the funding of the FE sector.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury mentioned the portability issue, and I have a lot of sympathy in that

181WH
regard. We are currently considering the matter. He also mentioned the year out, about which Nick St Aubyn, with whom I worked on the issue, was concerned when he was a Member of Parliament. Again, I like to think that we have made progress. Students have spent time outside the UK under the Erasmus and Socrates programmes, and that has made an important contribution to their higher education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North mentioned the postcode premium, which is important. We are considering it again to see whether we can focus it better to ensure that young people from underrepresented groups come into higher education.
I have not mentioned student funding because we talked about it last time. [Interruption.]Time does not permit. We are undertaking a review about balancing
182WH
the contributions of students, parents and the state. The Liberal Democrats have nothing to bring to the debate and are incredibly naive. The review is about phasing the payment. We will consult all the groups that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) mentioned, and we will put an animal on the table. Any sensible consultation must take place in that way. We are responding to evidence as it emerges.
Congratulations to the Select Committee—
It being fifteen minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Refrigerators
  Mrs. Brooke:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on small businesses of the requirement to take refrigerators to scrap yards after 1 January 2002. [12689]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  These requirements are a policy matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. However, officials in the Department have been assisting those in DEFRA to consult small businesses about this issue, and to consider the wider implications for small businesses as the policy is developed.

  DEFRA is currently assessing what financial assistance local authorities will require, in keeping with the new burdens procedure.

  Conference on Nuclear Terrorism
  Mr. Chaytor:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representatives her Department had at the International Atomic Energy Agency's conference on nuclear terrorism in Vienna; what recommendations for action by the United Kingdom Government were made at the conference; and what further discussions she intends to have with the IAEA in respect of security at civil nuclear installations. [13230]

  Ms Hewitt:
  Officials from the Office for Civil Nuclear Security and the Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate within my Department participated at the International Atomic Energy Agency's symposium on nuclear safeguards, verification and security held in Vienna between 29 October and 2 November. This included a special session on 2 November focused on the issue of combating nuclear terrorism. The special session consisted of preparations on a number of issues around the response to the threat of nuclear terrorism.

  The IAEA Secretariat will he presenting a preliminary report to the IAEA's Board of Governors later this month on current and planned activities relevant to protecting against acts of nuclear terrorism, and ideas for new and expanded activities for the agency to undertake. The UK is an active member of the Board of Governors, and will consider carefully the agency's proposed activities.

  Departmental Reviews
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if initial findings submitted to the strategic steering group as part of the Helping the UK get to the Future First and Business Support reviews will be made available to opposition parties. [12520]
  330W
  Ms Hewitt:
  The reviews of my Department's priorities and structure of my Department's support for business are continuing. I propose to make a public announcement about them as soon as their recommendations are ready.

  EU Research Council
  Mr. Hood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome of the Research Council held in Brussels on 30 October was; what the Government's stance on each issue discussed, including their voting record was; and if she will make a statement. [12018]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Research Council which was held in Luxembourg on 30 October:

  1. Held a general debate on Commission proposals for the next EU Research and Development Framework Programme 2002–06, including the proposed new funding instruments, and the next EURATOM Research and Development Framework Programme 2002–06. The Government reiterated their support for a focused programme, aimed at achieving added value through European co-operation, and for improving the efficiency of financial arrangements. The Council agreed to set up an expert working group to examine the future development of research on nuclear fusion.

  2. Adopted Council conclusions on the possible application of Article 169 concerning the voluntary networking of national programmes.

  3. Received a presentation from the Commission of its Communication on the regional dimension of the European Research Area.

  4. Received a presentation by the Commission on a draft European Community action plan on the Global Monitoring of Environmental Security (GMES) satellite initiative. The Government welcomed the emphasis on users' needs in the proposed action plan, but underlined the risks of a potential overlap with the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

  5. Received information from the Commission on the networking of member states' activities in the field of therapeutic AIDS trials.

  6. Under Other Business, the Council agreed in principle a proposal by the Belgian presidency to set up an expert group of member states' representatives to examine the scope for co-operation in research aimed at countering bio-terrorism.

  7. No votes were taken at the Council.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings Ministers have had with the Institute of Directors in each of the last five years. [10092]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 2 May 1997 DTI Ministers have had formal meetings with representatives from the Institute of Directors on the following number of occasions:

  Year

  Number of occasions

  1997

  5

  1998

  4

  1999

  4

  2000

  7

  2001

  3

  In addition, in the normal course of Government business DTI Ministers will have had more informal contact with representatives from the Institute of Directors on other occasions.
  331W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings Ministers have held with the Institute of Management in each of the last five years. [10093]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 2 May 1997 DTI Ministers have had formal meetings with representatives from the Institute of Management on the following occasions.

  Year

  Number of occasions

  2000

  3

  2001

  1

  In addition, in the normal course of Government business DTI Ministers will have had more informal contact with representatives from the Institute of Management on other occasions.

  Capacity of coal stations owned by major power producers1 in the UK in DNC2 terms

  MW

  End month

  Coal fired

  Oil fired

  Mixed or dual fired3

  Gas fired (CCGT)4

  Gas turbines and oil engines

  March 1990

  34,583

  12,847

  5,434

  —

  3,356

  March 1991

  34,298

  11,895

  5,172

  —

  3,130

  March 1992

  32,686

  10,817

  4,806

  229

  2,968

  March 1993

  30,523

  8,556

  5,781

  1,129

  2,539

  March 1994

  29,132

  6.317

  5,694

  5,463

  2,248

  March 1995

  27,774

  5,145

  5,534

  8,364

  1,895

  March 1996

  27,494

  5,214

  5,534

  9,034

  1,890

  December 19965

  25,976

  3,989

  8,445

  12,052

  1,721

  December 1997

  25,976

  4,069

  7,530

  12,252

  1,526

  December 1998

  25,324

  2,829

  6,928

  14,638

  1.492

  December 1999

  25,581

  2,829

  7,017

  16,110

  1,333

  December 2000

  24,835

  3,514

  6,872

  19,349

  1,243

  1 Companies whose prime purpose is the generation of electricity. The total fossil fuel capacity of other generators was 3,284 MW in March 1990 rising to 5,358 MW in December 2000.

  2 Declared net capability.

  3 Mixed or dual fired covers stations that can be fuelled by more than one fuel either as alternatives or simultaneously. So as not to disclose information provided in confidence about individual stations, this category also includes gas fired stations that are not combined cycle gas turbine stations.

  4 Combined cycle gas turbine stations.

  5 In 1996 a change was made to measure capacity at the end of the calendar year rather than at the end of March.

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2001 Table 5.7 and the corresponding tables for earlier years.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total amount of electricity generated from fossil fuel sources(a) in total and (b) for each fossil fuel type, in the UK in each year since 1990. [13288]

  Ms Hewitt
  The available information is as follows:

  GWh

  Electricity supplied from coal

  Electricity supplied from oil

  Electricity supplied from gas

  Total electricity supplied from fossil fuels

  19901

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  246,114

  19911

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  245,368

  19921

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  236,034

  1993

  170,276

  20,038

  32,930

  223,244

  1994

  161,739

  14,075

  49,526

  225,340

  1995

  157,240

  12,480

  63,323

  233,043

  1996

  146,856

  13,677

  82,959

  243,492

  1997

  119,627

  7,854

  109,515

  236,996

  Objective 1 Regions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is in relation to the provision of(a) operating aid, (b) employment aid and (c) investment aid in the Objective 1 regions under Article 87(3)a of the EC Treaty; and what representations she has received on this issue. [12398]

  Ms Hewitt
  Our policy is to support aid which addresses market failure and which speeds economic reform but which does not distort competition. I have received no recent representations about aid in Objective 1 regions.

  Fossil Fuel
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the installed capacity of fossil fuel generation for each fossil fuel type in the UK in each year since 1990. [13290]

  Ms Hewitt
  The available information is as follows:

  GWh

  Electricity supplied from coal

  Electricity supplied from oil

  Electricity supplied from gas

  Total electricity supplied from fossil fuels

  1998

  122,953

  6,360

  117,858

  247,171

  1999

  106,112

  5,685

  143,052

  254,849

  2000

  119,960

  5,597

  146,807

  272,364

  1 Before 1993 electricity supplied statistics were disaggregated by type of station rather than type of fuel so only the total for fossil fuels is available.

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2001 Table 5.6 and corresponding tables for earlier years.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total installed capacity of renewable energy generation in the UK in each year since 1990. [13292]
  333W
  Ms Hewitt
  The available information is as follows:

  MW

  End December

  Capacity of renewable energy generation in the UK in DNC1 terms

  1990

  1,234.8

  1991

  1,572.7

  1992

  1,644.5

  1993

  1,743.0

  1994

  1,795.3

  1995

  1,831.1

  1996

  1,962.0

  1997

  2,008.1

  1998

  2,171.3

  1999

  2,273.4

  2000

  2,439.7

  1 Declared net capacity

  Source

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2001 Table 7.4 and corresponding tables for earlier years.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what has been the proportion of electricity generated from(a) renewable and (b) UK-based renewable sources since 1990 (i) in total and (ii) compared with each fossil fuel type; [13286]

  (2) what was the (a) total amount of electricity generated from renewable sources in the UK in each year since 1990 and (b) proportion of all electricity generated from (i) renewable sources and (ii) UK-based renewable sources in each year since 1990. [13291]

  Ms Hewitt
  The available information is as follows. Nuclear sources account for the proportion of generation that was neither from renewables nor fossil fuels. On b(i), the fuel source of imported electricity is not recorded separately in DTI statistics. It is assumed that electricity imported from France in these years was from non-fossil sources:

  Proportion of total electricity generated in the UK that was from:

  Year

  Electricity generated from renewable sources in the UK (GWh)

  Renewable sources (percentage)

  Fossil fuel sources (percentage)

  1990

  5,894

  1.8

  77

  1991

  5,409

  1.7

  76

  1992

  6,502

  2.1

  74

  1993

  5,883

  1.8

  69

  1994

  7,307

  2.2

  69

  1995

  7,283

  2.2

  70

  1996

  6,101

  1.8

  68

  1997

  7,428

  2.1

  68

  1998

  9,231

  2.5

  68

  1999

  10,199

  2.8

  69

  2000

  10,476

  2.8

  73

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2001 Tables 5.6 and 7.44 and the corresponding tables for earlier years

  Postal Service
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she proposes to improve the postal service; and if she will make a statement. [12591]

  Mr. Alexander
  Under our reform package for postal services, which was fully implemented on 26 March this year, Consignia has greater commercial freedom to compete more efficiently and effectively. There is now 334W
  a new independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission, whose primary responsibility is to maintain the provision of a universal postal service at a uniform tariff. The commission has set tough standards of service for Consignia and is monitoring them closely. In addition, the commission can and has licensed other companies to compete with Consignia which will benefit consumers through more choice and better quality services. The commission recently completed a comprehensive consultation exercise on the introduction of competition and is expected to come forward with a report and recommendations shortly.

  The Consumer Council for Postal Services, known as Postwatch, replaced the Post Office Users National Council, and will investigate consumer complaints if these have not been satisfactorily resolved with Consignia. Postwatch has wider powers and duties than POUNC and works closely with Postcomm to monitor the quality of postal services in the UK.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kosovo
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the bodies found in the mass grave at Dragodan, Pristina have been identified, broken down by(a) ethnic background and (b) sex. [10450]

  Mr. MacShane
  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former 'Yugoslavia (ICTY) has exhumed 210 bodies from individual graves at the cemetery in Dragodan, Pristina. Of the bodies exhumed, 36 were females and 139 were male. The gender of 35 bodies could not be identified.

  According to the Missing Persons Unit of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), 52 of the 210 bodies have been identified to date. Five bodies were Kosovo Serbs (four male and one female). Forty-seven bodies were Kosovo Albanians (40 male and seven female).

  High Commission and Embassy Offices
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost was of running(a) British high commission offices and (b) British embassy offices in each of the last three years. [12083]

  Mr. MacShane
  The total costs of running British high commissions and embassies for the years in question are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) British high commissions

  (b) British embassies

  1998–99

  148.35

  510.99

  1999–2000

  113.50

  442.74

  2000–01

  127.01

  479.40

  The apparent fall in costs between the first and second years is due to the switch from cash accounting to resource accounting.
  335W

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the consequences of a failure of the Government of Gibraltar to participate in the Brussels process. [12017]

  Peter Hain
  When the Foreign Secretary met the Spanish Foreign Minister on 26 July for talks under the Brussels process, they confirmed that Gibraltarian engagement would be an important element in carrying the process forward and that they would welcome the attendance of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar at future ministerial meetings. This remains the case and both we and the Government of Spain very much hope that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar will participate at the ministerial meeting due to be held in Barcelona on 20 November.

  The Government believe that through the dialogue in the recently resumed Brussels process, we shall build a better future for the people of Gibraltar, including normalising relations with Spain, and that all should welcome this. I refer the hon. Member to my speech to Westminster Hall on 7 November 2001, Official Report, columns 88–92WH.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he(a) last met and (b) next plans to meet representatives of the Spanish Government to discuss the future of Gibraltar. [12383]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 121W.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of Gibraltar. [12381]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's briefing of 30 October on the future of Gibraltar. [12961]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friends to my statement in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2001,Official Report, columns 88–92WH.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy relating to the sovereignty of Gibraltar. [12831]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on 30 October 2001,Official Report,? columns 737–39, and to the speech I made in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2001, Official Report, columns 88–92WH.

  South and Central America
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements were made for discussions with representatives of(a) Government, (b) industrial, (c) commercial and (d) other organisations during his visit to south and central America. [12880]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not yet visited south or central America since taking office. My 336W
  right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with a delegation of business leaders, visited Brazil, Argentina and Mexico in July-August.

  Plan for Africa
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution his Department has made to the Plan for Africa. [11349]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD—formerly known as the New African Initiative) will require a broad international response, ranging form 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 met.

  The Prime Minister has appointed Baroness Amos as his personal representative in developing a G8 Action Plan for Africa to be adopted at the at the 2002 G8 Summit in Canada. The first meeting of G8 Heads of State personal representatives was held in London 17 to 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.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish his Green Paper on private military companies. [13427]

  Peter Hain
  Preparation of the Green Paper is now well advanced. I will keep the House informed of progress.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan (Children)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will meet representatives of Save the Children to consider what action can be taken by the Government to reunite separated children with their families in the Afghanistan area. [12696]

  Clare Short
  As part of our response to the current crisis, my Department is supporting Save the Children's work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which encompasses health, education and shelter in addition to child protection activities.

  We are also supporting the Red Cross movement and UNICEF for their work in child protection, food supply, water and sanitation, shelter and health.

  All these organisations are experienced in the important activity of reuniting separated families in humanitarian crises.

  Pakistan (Refugee Camps)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what she is doing to ensure that refugee camps in Pakistan comply with internationally agreed standards; [12906]
  337W
  (2) if she will make a statement on the standards in the refugee camps in Pakistan. [12907]

  Clare Short
  Pakistan has been shouldering the burden of some 2 million refugees from Afghanistan for many years. This is in addition to the estimated 100,000 people who have moved into Pakistan from Afghanistan since 11 September. Over the last 20 years, these refugees have been hosted in camps or absorbed into communities. The majority of the camps in Pakistan pre-date the agreement of the international sphere standards.

  We must of course do all we can to ensure that all refugees are properly cared for. And the international community must do more to give Pakistan all possible support in coping with this burden and making progress towards improving standards in camps.

  So far my Department has committed £3 million to UNHCR's operations in response to the current crisis, to support its operations for refugees. We have also provided a specialist site planner to UNHCR in Pakistan to assist with the setting up of new refugee camp sites. In addition we have allocated £5 million to support NGOs, much of which will be directed towards Afghans in Pakistan.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Physical Agents Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of(a) the impact on British businesses of the proposed physical agents directive and (b) its cost to British business. [11855]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Regulatory Impact Assessments of the common position on both proposed physical agents directives on vibration and noise have been prepared by the Health and Safety Executive. The RIA on the vibration directive has already been submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee and is available in the House of Commons Library; I will shortly submit the RIA on the noise directive and place it in the Library.

  Property Blight
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on compensation payable to residents for property blight arising from the construction of the Aston Clinton bypass. [11862]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is able to confirm that two properties need to be acquired in order to construct the A41 London-Birmingham Trunk Road (Aston Clinton Bypass). They are being acquired under Compulsory Purchase Order (C.P.0) (No. SW14) 1997 and compensation for these properties will be at market value. Statutory property blight, which could require us to buy a property adversely affected by the announcement of a road scheme before a C.P.O is issued, did not apply in this instance because no request to purchase was received from the owner occupiers.
  338W

  Building Inspectors
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the system of buildings inspection by approved inspectors. [12645]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Building control by approved inspectors is provided for under the Building Act 1984 and the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2000. People intending to carry out work subject to the building regulations may opt to engage an approved inspector as an alternative to asking the local authority to carry out building control. This competitive situation is widely regarded as a stimulus to better, more efficient building control services.

  Air Travel
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he proposes to encourage people to travel by air. [R] [12974]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are working hard to help return the aviation industry to business as usual as quickly as possible.

  Following the events of 11 September security measures have been enhanced at all UK airports and for all flights from the UK. We are carrying out a fundamental review of aviation security to ensure that air travel is as safe from terrorist attacks as we can make it while, at the same time, balancing security with our freedom to travel.

  Alongside increased security measures and intervention to provide the industry with third party war risk insurance, the Government are also actively involved in helping to restore confidence in air travel. As part of this I undertook a programme of visits to airports on 25 October, taking in Gatwick, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Bristol, which gave me the opportunity to press home the message that we should not let the fear of terrorism undermine our freedom to fly.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of Croydon Tramlink. [12754]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London.

  Port Health
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the expenditure on Port Health was in each of the last five years and what the estimated outturn is for the next three years. [12725]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 6 November 200I]: English local authorities have reported the following expenditure on Port Health. This information was not collected centrally after 1997–98.
  339W

  £000

  Net current expenditure

  1993–94

  4,579

  1994–95

  4,273

  1995–96

  4,335

  1996–97

  4,226

  1997–98

  4,040

  Bypass Schemes
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what European Union guidelines he uses in evaluating the environmental impact of proposed bypass schemes. [13150]

  Mr. Jamieson
  When draft orders are prepared for a road scheme, including a bypass, where the land required exceeds one hectare an environmental statement assessing the environmental impact is required under European Community Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC. The EC Directive sets out the information specified in the environmental statement but guidelines on evaluating the environmental impact are matters for each member state.

  Civil Aviation Industry
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what(a) action he is taking and (b) further plans he has to support the civil aviation industry following the terrorist attacks on 11 September; [13236]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) trades unions and (b) civil aviation industry representatives with regard to the problems facing the civil aviation industry since 11 September. [13237]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have had discussions with airlines and other bodies connected with the aviation industry, including union representatives, to consider the economic consequences for the industry of the 11 September terrorist attacks. The Government have underwritten, on a temporary basis, third party war risk insurance for UK airlines and service providers to the aviation industry and are considering whether further support should be made available within European Commission guidelines.

  Aircraft Seating
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to increase the minimum distance between the seat back cushion and the back of the seat in front on all UK-registered aircraft over 5,700 kg MTWA which carry 20 passengers or more; [11810]

  (2)what plans he has to commission research into the need to alter the minimum vertically projected distance between (a) seat rows and (b) a seat and any fixed structure forward of the seat on all UK-registered aircraft over 5,700 kg MTWA which carry 20 passengers or more; [11923]

  (3)what assessment he has made of recommendations of the Anthropometric Study to Update Minimum Aircraft Seating Standards initiated by the Joint Aviation Authorities; [11921]
  340W
  (4) what plans he has to increase the minimum distance between the seat base and back of the seat in front on all UK-registered aircraft over 5,700 kg MTWA which carry 20 passengers or more. [11922]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Anthropometric Study to Update Minimum Aircraft Seating Standards was initiated by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in order to examine how the most recent data on human dimensions may be used to assess the way passengers sit in their seats and their ability efficiently to evacuate an aircraft in an emergency. In addition some other aspects, such as the adoption of recommended brace positions, were also examined.

  The study, commissioned by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on behalf of the JAA, was carried out by consultants ICE Ergonomics. It made a number of recommendations based on dimensions between seats and between seats and other structures.

  The development and application of airworthiness requirements and operational procedures related to emergency evacuation is the responsibility of the Safety Regulation Group of the CAA. Currently the CAA is the only member of the JAA to set legal minimum requirements for seat spacing. The Authority will consider the study's recommendations in consultation with other members of the JAA and industry, and, if considered appropriate, proposals will be made for amending the airworthiness requirements.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to commission prospective research together with clinical and basic scientific support, into the incidence and cause of thrombo embolic disease among air travellers. [11919]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The World Health Organisation has recently announced a global research project into a number of aspects of Deep Vein Thrombosis. This Department, together with the Department of Health, is considering the extent to which the Government should participate in this work and will shortly announce plans.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce compulsory foldaway foot leg rests in all UK-registered aircraft over 5,700 keg MTWA which carry 20 passengers or more. [11920]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Foot leg rests are already provided in many aircraft but not normally in economy class seats. Although their provision might improve the comfort of passengers, there is no evidence to suggest their absence represents a health risk. This is not therefore a matter for regulation but rather a commercial matter for airlines to decide what level of comfort to offer in a particular class of seating.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on providing financial guarantees to the successor company to Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [11336]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick)
  341W
  on 23 October 2001, Official Report column 195W, and to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 671W.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes he has made in the financial provision for transport services as a result of Railtrack's going into administration. [11339]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1230W.

WALES

  Objective 1 Money
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of current allocated Objective 1 money has been spent in Wales; and what percentage is committed to projects in Wales. [11121]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The operation of Objective 1, and the allocation of its funds, is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has attended in the last 12 months on Objective 1 money with(a) HM Treasury, (b) the Department of Trade and Industry, (c) the European Commission, (d) the National Assembly for Wales and (e) the Welsh Development Agency. [11120]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In the course of the last 12 months I have had meetings with representatives of all the bodies listed to discuss Objective 1 funding, among other issues.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many publications were issued by his Department in each of the last four years. [11820]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department was established on 1 July 1999 and issued no publications in 1999, one in 2000 and has issued one so far this year.

  Joint Committee of Health Ministers
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1153, what the conclusions were of the joint committee of Health Ministers from the UK Government and the devolved administrations held on 22 October. [12883]

  Mr. Touhig
  JMC (Health) provides a forum for Ministers responsible for health services in all parts of the United Kingdom to work together on areas of shared interest to deliver improved health services for the people they serve. At the meeting on 22 October, the Health Ministers exchanged experiences on their respective modernisation agendas and affirmed the importance of continuing to share best practice, working in partnership on issues where they had similar aims and values for improving the patient experience of healthcare.
  342W

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [13136]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  World Athletics Championships
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 10 July 2001,Official Report, columns 449–50W, on the World Athletics Championships, what indications she received from Mr. Gyulai regarding the IAAF's continuing commitment to holding the World Athletics Championships in London; and if they discussed a contingency plan for the games to be held outside the UK. [5383]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: It has been my priority to keep the International Association of Athletic Federations IAAF fully informed at every stage about the review of the UK's arrangements for the 2005 World Athletics Championships. My Department has had the following contact with the IAAF prior to the decision to withdraw support for the Lee Valley project.

  2 July: I spoke to Istvan Gyulai, General Secretary of the IAAF by telephone to inform him that Sport England had commissioned Patrick Carter to review the Lee Valley project and to advise him that the Government were committed to staging the 2005 World Athletics Championships.

  6 August: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport met Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, and Istvan Gyulai at the World Athletics Championships in Edmonton.

  25 September: At my request, a senior DCMS official spoke to Istvan Gyulai to inform him that the Government were considering Patrick Carter's report and that we would advise him of the position as soon as the Government, Sport England and UK Athletics had reached a conclusion on staging the World Athletics Championships.

  During these discussions the question of switching the Championships outside the UK was not specifically raised. Once the decision to withdraw support from the Lee Valley project had been taken, David Moorcroft, Chief Executive of UK Athletics and I spoke to Lamine Diack and Istvan Gyulai on 4 October by telephone to let them know of our decision that Lee Valley was not viable and to say that we wanted to suggest to the IAAF that the Championships be switched to Sheffield. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and I met Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, Istvan Gyulai and Robert Stimpson, IAAF Treasurer on 5 October. This meeting was also attended by David Hemery and David Moorcroft from UK Athletics, Patrick Carter and by officials from DCMS and Sport England.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many parliamentary written questions regarding the Millennium Dome have been tabled since 1 May 1997; and how many answers to such questions have been subject to commercial confidentiality. [10620]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: Of some 1,360 questions that have been answered on Dome and Millennium Experience issues since May 1997, 78 questions have been answered by my Department on which information requested has been subject to commercial confidentiality. This represents 5.73 per cent. of all questions answered.

  In addition, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has answered 21 questions relating to the Millennium Dome in which commercial confidentiality has been cited.

  Television
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the commercial value of the spectrum which will become available following the switch-off of analogue television. [12340]

  Dr. Howells
  The value of the spectrum will depend on a range of issues including the amount of spectrum that may become available, what the spectrum can be used for and how it might be packaged into licences for an award process, together with prospective licensees' own perception of the value of the resource at the time of award in the context of their business plans. It is not possible to anticipate these issues. However, to help consideration of the spectrum planning issues, we will shortly release a consultation document, as a strand of the Draft Digital Television Action Plan published recently, seeking views on the various ways that the spectrum might be ordered after switch over.

  European City of Culture
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications she has received for membership of the advisory committee on the selection of the European City of Culture 2008; how many of the applicants are resident in Wales; when she expects to announce the membership of the panel; and if she will make a statement. [12848]

  Dr. Howells
  We have received 47 nominations and applications for membership of the independent advisory panel on the selection of the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008. Of these, four are resident in Wales. We are also identifying possible candidates from the DCMS and Cabinet Office public appointments databases, which include many more people resident in Wales. We expect to announce the membership of the panel by March 2002. It will include at least one member from each of the four countries of the UK.

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many consultation documents were issued by her Department and its predecessors from 344W
  (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. [12899]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department consults the public in a variety of ways, not simply through the publication of documents. Since 1998 we have, for example, held ministerially-led seminars in connection with our Departmental Spending Review; used specialist working groups to help formulate our national tourism strategy Tomorrow's Tourism; put consultation documents on our internet site, and issued press releases seeking views on whether particular buildings should be listed.

  No central record of every consultation document issued since October 1996 is held, but the approximate figures for DCMS and its predecessor, the Department of National Heritage, are:

  From

  To

  Number of documents issued

  15 October 1996

  14 January 1997

  0

  15 January 1997

  14 April 1997

  0

  15 April 1997

  14 July 1997

  1

  15 July 1997

  14 October 1997

  2

  15 October 1997

  14 January 1998

  0

  15 January 1998

  14 April 1998

  2

  15 April 1998

  14 July 1998

  2

  15 July 1998

  14 October 1998

  2

  15 October 1998

  14 January 1999

  2

  15 January 1999

  14 April 1999

  1

  15 April 1999

  14 July 1999

  2

  15 July 1999

  14 October 1999

  0

  15 October 1999

  14 January 2000

  3

  15 January 2000

  14 April 2000

  0

  15 April 2000

  14 July 2000

  4

  15 July 2000

  14 October 2000

  3

  15 October 2000

  14 January 2001

  5

  15 January 2001

  14 April 2001

  4

  15 April 2001

  14 July 2001

  1

  15 July 2001

  14 October 2001

  4

  15 October 2001

  7 November 2001

  1

  Commonwealth Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Government money has been given to the Commonwealth stadium in Manchester. [13014]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. The cost of the stadium, currently estimated at £110 million, is being met by Manchester city council with the support of a £77 million lottery grant from Sport England.

  Television Licences
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she has taken to ensure that the mailing of households not recorded as holding television licences by the Television Licensing Authority is cost-effective. [12662]

  Dr. Howells
  Statutory responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the television licensing system rests with the BBC. Decisions on the resources allocated to different enforcement activities are therefore a matter for the BBC rather than the Government. However, the Corporation is accountable to the National
  345W
  Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee as to the value for money of the collection and enforcement arrangements.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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 his Department. [13129]

  Dr. Howells
  No cases of computer hacking or fraud, either by outsiders or internal staff were recorded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2000 or in 2001 to date.

  Two computers have been lost so far in 2001 with three computers lost in 2000.

  No Departmental computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers within or outside the Department.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North Thanet on political bias by broadcasting stations; and if she will make a statement. [12787]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday and I have arranged for copies of my letter to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter to her dated 14 June, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Miss M. Cowley. [6522]

  Mr. Morley
  My Private Secretary replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton on 3 August 2001.

  After a request from my right hon. Friend, the reply was resent on 14 August 2001 signed by myself.

  Foxhunting
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of job losses in the countryside if foxhunting does not restart before Christmas. [10006]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the potential number of job losses consequent on the suspension of hunting as a result of foot and mouth disease.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals were culled in Powys during the foot and mouth outbreak. [R] [12836]

  Mr. Morley
  The numbers of animals slaughtered on infected premises, dangerous contacts, contiguous premises and slaughter on suspicion cases in Powys are available on the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk). The website is updated daily.

  Figures for Powys as at 5 November 2001

  Dangerous contacts

  Animals

  IP

  Contiguous

  Non- contiguous

  SOS

  Total

  Cattle

  5,357

  9,440

  2,224

  697

  17,718

  Sheep

  50,941

  67,747

  36,892

  8,149

  163,729

  Pigs

  2

  7

  47

  0

  56

  Goats

  22

  15

  0

  0

  37

  Deer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  56,322

  77,209

  39,163

  8,846

  181,540

  Note:

  Data drawn from DEFRA Disease Control System database and are subject to revision as quality assurance of data is carried out.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance the Arthur Rank Foundation is giving to farmers in Chorley affected by foot and mouth. [13228]

  Mr. Morley
  The Arthur Rank Foundation has used its charitable funds to provide relief for rural communities who have been affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. This includes, among other things, the establishment of a National Fodder Bureau. This bureau maintains a database of people who wish to sell or donate fodder and matches them up with farmers who cannot source their own supplies. The National Fodder Bureau has been receiving matched funding from the Countryside Agency pound for pound on donations (excluding corporate donations) and gift aid. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs announced on 6 November that the Government had agreed to a new tranche of match funding, comprising up to £2 million until 31 December 2001.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Murder Investigations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to appoint a judge of international standing from outside the jurisdiction to undertake the investigation of allegations of collusion in the cases of the murders of Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and Billy Wright; when he expects these investigations to be completed; when he will publish the terms of reference for them; what powers he will give the judge to compel potential witnesses and interview people disapplying the Official Secrets Acts; what arrangements will be made to hear the views of the victims' families; and what commitment he has made to publish the terms of his agreement to establish a public inquiry. [11492]
  347W
  Jane Kennedy
  The package of proposals published after the Weston Park talks contained details of the investigation by a judge of international standing into the cases of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, Billy Wright, Patrick Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, and Robert Hamill. We are currently working with the Irish Government on the appointment. Further details will be published in due course.

  Reproductive Health
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) individuals and (b) organisations made submissions to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission calling for the inclusion of a right to equal and free access to reproductive health care; and if he will list these organisations, together with the number of people represented by them. [12312]

  Mr. Browne
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I have asked the Chief Commissioner to write to the hon. Member. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  National Organ Register
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of the population have joined the national organ register. [10759]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are currently 9,170,045 people on the national health service organ donor register. This is 15 per cent. of the population.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients died in each year from 1995 to 2000 while on the waiting list for(a) heart, (b) heart and lung, (c) lung and (d) liver transplants; [10960]

  (2) how many people are awaiting a (a) kidney transplant, (b) heart transplant, (c) heart and lung transplant, (d) lung transplant and (e) liver transplant; and if he will make a statement on the shortfall in organs available for transplant; [10959]

  (3) how many organ transplants were carried out in the last five years for which figures are available. [10760]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Thoracic and liver patients who died while on the active waiting list in the UK from 1995 to 2000 by organ and year of death

  Organ

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Heart

  55

  57

  59

  55

  54

  37

  Heart/lung

  32

  39

  32

  22

  26

  42

  Lung

  50

  50

  54

  66

  71

  49

  Liver

  50

  50

  62

  74

  76

  65

  Total

  187

  196

  207

  217

  227

  193

  348W

  Solid organ waiting list in the UK as of 21 October 2001 by organ and status

  Organ

  Active

  Suspended

  Total

  Kidney

  4.779

  1,263

  6,042

  Kidney/pancreas

  104

  29

  133

  Pancreas

  11

  21

  32

  Heart

  106

  11

  117

  Heart/lung

  77

  2

  79

  Lung

  232

  2

  234

  Liver

  151

  2

  153

  Total

  5,460

  1,330

  6,790

  Solid organ transplants in the UK from 1996 to 2000 by organ and year of transplant

  Organ

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total

  Kidney

  1,682

  1,666

  1,581

  1,581

  1,670

  8,180

  Kidney/pancreas

  19

  21

  22

  31

  32

  125

  Pancreas

  3

  9

  0

  3

  0

  15

  Heart

  276

  264

  261

  227

  204

  1,232

  Heart/lung

  50

  43

  51

  49

  33

  226

  Lung

  116

  103

  88

  100

  98

  515

  Liver

  617

  659

  651

  679

  665

  3,271

  Other Multi-organ

  24

  14

  19

  15

  6

  78

  Total

  2,787

  2,779

  2,673

  2,695

  2,708

  13,642

  Pneumococcal Vaccine
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to(a) provide and (b) promote pneumococcal vaccine for pensioners aged over 65 years; and if he will make a statement; [10104]

  (2) what plans the JCVI has to consider the effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine on elderly patients and make recommendations on its future use for NHS patients aged over 65 years. [10106]

  (3) what evaluations his Department has made of the clinical effectiveness of the pneumococcal vaccine for those aged over 65 years; [10103]

  (4) what estimates he has made of the (a) cost and (b) savings to the NHS if everyone aged 65 years and more were given the pneumococcal vaccine; [10105]

  (5) what evaluations his Department has carried out into the cost effectiveness of administering the pneumococcal vaccine to all those aged over 65 years; [10107]

  (6) what plans her Department has to submit evidence to the JCVI on the effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine for those aged 65 years and older; and if he will make a statement. [10102]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Based on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), pneumococcal vaccine is currently recommended for use in certain risk groups with certain medical conditions, which put them at higher risk of pneumococcal infection. The JCVI regularly reviews its advice and the Department also keeps the evidence base on this topic under review.
  349W
  Pneumococcal vaccine is recommended for all those aged two years or older in whom pneumococcal infection is likely to be more common and/or dangerous, ie those with:

  Asplenia or severe dysfunction of the spleen

  Chronic renal disease or nephrotic syndrome

  Immunodeficiency or immunosuppression due to disease or treatment, including HIV infection at all stages

  Chronic heart disease

  Chronic lung disease

  Chronic liver disease including cirrhosis

  Diabetes mellitus.

  It is the responsibility of general practitioners and nurses to identify and immunise their at risk patients.

  The Department has not carried out a cost effectiveness study of administering the pneumococcal vaccine to all aged 65 years and over but continues to recommend the vaccine based on underlying ill health rather than age.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the clinical and cost effectiveness of implementing an age-based pneumococcal vaccine campaign; [10736]

  (2) which health authorities operate age-based pneumococcal vaccine campaigns. [10737]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The Department has not carried out a cost effectiveness study of administering pneumococcal vaccine based on age and does not hold data on which health authorities operate age-based pneumococcal vaccine, as the Department continues to recommend the vaccine based on underlying ill health rather than age.

  Pneumococcal vaccine is recommended for all those aged two years or older in whom pneumococcal infection is likely to be more common and/or dangerous, ie those with:

  Asplenia or severe dysfunction of the spleen

  Chronic renal disease or nephrotic syndrome

  Immunodeficiency or immunosuppression due to disease or treatment, including HIV infection at all stages

  Chronic heart disease

  Chronic lung disease

  Chronic liver disease including cirrhosis

  Diabetes mellitus.

  It is the responsibility of general practitioners and nurses to identify and immunise their at risk patients.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist pharmacist inspectors the National Care Standards Commission plans to have in its establishment; how many will be in post from 1 April 2002; and what their role will be. [11013]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The planned establishment for pharmacist inspectors in the National Care Standards Commission is 66. The number which will be in post at 1 April 2002 is not yet known, as invitations to transfer have not yet been issued to staff eligible to transfer from health authorities and trusts. The ministerial scheme to effect the transfer of staff (the Statutory Transfer Order) will be prepared later this year.
  350W
  The role of pharmacist inspectors in the National Care Standards Commission will continue to be to provide professional support to regulation, with the new regulator, from 1 April 2002.

  Maternity Units
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities have midwife-led maternity units. [10013]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Using a definition of midwife-led units to cover free standing units, separate units co-located with other hospital services and midwife-led areas which are part of a consultant-led unit, the following health authorities have midwife-led units:

  Trent Region:

  North Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, South Humber, Nottinghamshire, South Derbyshire, Doncaster, Sheffield and Nottingham.

  South Eastern Region:

  Berkshire. Buckinghamshire, East Kent, East Surrey, East Sussex, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire, North and Mid Hampshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Southampton and South West Hampshire

  South West Region:

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, North and East Devon, Dorset,Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire.

  North West Region:

  South Lancashire, Morecambe Bay, St. Helens and Knowsley and Salford and Trafford.

  Northern and Yorkshire Region:

  East Riding and Hull, Northumberland, North Cumbria, Tees and Wakefield (to open February 2002).

  West Midland Region:

  Shropshire, North Staffordshire, South Staffordshire, Worcestershire Coventry, Birmingham.

  Eastern Region:

  North Essex health authority and Suffolk health authority.

  London Region:

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminster, Barking and Havering, Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, Camden and Islington, Barnet Enfield and Haringey, East London and The City, Hillingdon, Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich, Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow, Merton Sutton and Wandsworth, Brent and Harrow, Kingston and Richmond and Croydon.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many publications were issued by his Department in each of the last four years. [11835]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has issued the following number of publications over the last four years:

  Number of publications issued

  1998

  974

  1999

  884

  2000

  1,035

  2001

  1 946

  1 As of 31 October 2001

  Note:

  These figures include documents issued as books, leaflets, circulars or in electronic format only

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of dentists providing treatment on the national health service in each health authority in England and Wales in each of the last four years. [11872]

  General dental service: Total number of dentists at 30 June each year from 1998 to 2001: England and Wales

  Health authority by region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England and Wales

  17,691

  18,245

  18,686

  18,995

  England

  16,763

  17,270

  17,700

  18,004

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,990

  2,030

  2,030

  2,110

  Bradford

  146

  148

  148

  142

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  185

  185

  188

  195

  County Durham and Darlington

  153

  161

  165

  171

  East Riding and Hull

  136

  141

  145

  153

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  119

  122

  119

  124

  Leeds

  265

  268

  254

  279

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  161

  173

  164

  168

  North Cumbria

  103

  102

  102

  104

  North Yorkshire

  268

  279

  280

  292

  Northumberland

  107

  100

  100

  97

  Sunderland

  79

  76

  82

  85

  Tees

  182

  186

  189

  196

  Wakefield

  86

  89

  94

  104

  Trent

  1,447

  1,495

  1,560

  1,570

  Barnsley

  61

  64

  67

  61

  Doncaster

  88

  85

  96

  98

  Leicestershire

  261

  267

  277

  278

  Lincolnshire

  136

  149

  156

  157

  North Derbyshire

  102

  105

  104

  112

  North Nottinghamshire

  106

  107

  122

  117

  Nottingham

  210

  219

  222

  223

  Rotherham

  70

  70

  73

  75

  Sheffield

  178

  176

  186

  197

  Southern Derbyshire

  162

  177

  178

  172

  South Humber

  73

  76

  79

  80

  West Midlands

  1,545

  1,571

  1,612

  1,632

  Birmingham

  313

  314

  321

  315

  Coventry

  83

  86

  88

  89

  Dudley

  84

  81

  85

  91

  Herefordshire

  67

  72

  73

  73

  North Staffordshire

  114

  116

  119

  128

  Sandwell

  86

  86

  81

  86

  Shropshire

  136

  132

  141

  146

  Solihull

  55

  62

  63

  65

  South Staffordshire

  161

  158

  166

  171

  Walsall

  58

  61

  63

  54

  Warwickshire

  148

  152

  164

  166

  Wolverhampton

  60

  65

  66

  69

  Worcestershire

  180

  186

  182

  179

  North West

  2,213

  2,239

  2,237

  2,253

  Bury and Rochdale

  127

  124

  123

  118

  East Lancashire

  159

  157

  160

  158

  Liverpool

  153

  151

  144

  150

  Manchester

  173

  180

  167

  169

  Morecambe Bay

  106

  110

  114

  111

  North Cheshire

  88

  91

  97

  93

  North West Lancashire

  161

  165

  169

  165

  Salford and Trafford

  151

  148

  152

  154

  Sefton

  96

  97

  92

  95

  South Cheshire

  265

  251

  247

  253

  South Lancashire

  93

  95

  93

  99

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  94

  105

  106

  106

  352W
  Ms Blears
  The number of general dental services dentists in England and Wales is shown in the table for June in each of the years 1998 to 2001 for the current health authorities.

  The total number of dentists in England and Wales increased by 7 per cent. in the three years from June 1998 to June 2001. The commitment of individual dentists to the general dental services can vary.
  353W

  General dental service: Total number of dentists at 30 June each year from 1998 to 2001: England and Wales

  Health authority by region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Stockport

  111

  107

  116

  120

  West Pennine

  144

  146

  143

  148

  Wigan and Bolton

  166

  175

  180

  181

  Wirral

  126

  137

  134

  133

  Eastern

  1,772

  1,858

  1,914

  1,976

  Bedfordshire

  165

  176

  191

  188

  Cambridgeshire1

  —

  223

  227

  241

  Hertfordshire

  429

  453

  468

  494

  Norfolk1

  —

  266

  266

  277

  North Essex

  289

  295

  302

  305

  South Essex

  210

  220

  235

  241

  Suffolk

  212

  225

  225

  230

  London

  2,948

  3,011

  3,102

  3,137

  Barking and Havering

  109

  117

  117

  123

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  346

  347

  373

  371

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  262

  267

  293

  294

  Brent and Harrow

  196

  198

  196

  213

  Camden and Islington

  204

  208

  220

  233

  Croydon

  140

  141

  136

  150

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  345

  361

  341

  348

  East London and The City

  185

  204

  191

  196

  Hillingdon

  93

  96

  97

  101

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  222

  219

  237

  216

  Kingston and Richmond

  149

  155

  155

  155

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  273

  259

  272

  261

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  264

  275

  293

  301

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  160

  164

  181

  175

  South East

  3,082

  3,225

  3,326

  3,376

  Berkshire

  277

  282

  307

  303

  Buckinghamshire

  252

  272

  283

  288

  East Kent

  193

  200

  206

  204

  East Surrey

  190

  189

  189

  202

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  296

  308

  317

  328

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  211

  225

  224

  226

  North and Mid Hampshire

  178

  188

  197

  212

  Northamptonshire

  160

  167

  169

  167

  Oxfordshire

  210

  223

  244

  253

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  190

  193

  199

  199

  West Kent

  352

  364

  369

  357

  West Surrey

  269

  294

  288

  295

  West Sussex

  304

  320

  334

  342

  South and West

  1,766

  1,841

  1,919

  1,950

  Avon

  396

  411

  431

  436

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  158

  161

  171 -

  178

  Dorset

  251

  263

  271

  272

  Gloucestershire

  210

  217

  218

  215

  North and East Devon

  180

  184

  191

  204

  Somerset

  161

  162

  176

  174

  South and West Devon

  210

  228

  240

  249

  Wiltshire

  200

  215

  221

  222

  Wales

  928

  975

  986

  991

  Bro Taf

  228

  238

  243

  247

  Dyfed Powys

  145

  160

  165

  167

  Gwent

  176

  183

  180

  180

  Morgannwg

  176

  185

  185

  186

  North Wales

  203

  209

  213

  211

  1 June 1998 data are not available. Cambridge and Norfolk HAs were created in April 1999 from the previous HAs: Cambridge and Huntingdon; East Norfolk; and North West Anglia. The total number of dentists in these HAs was 467 in June 1998 and 489 in June 1999.

  Notes:

  1. Some dentists have contracts in more than one health authority. These dentists have been counted only once, in the HA in which they hold their main contract. Dentists include principals on a HA list of dentists, and their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2. At 30 June 2001 there were 592 dentists working in the personal dental service (PDS) in England, of which 385 were working solely in the PDS. There are no PDS pilots in Wales.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the success of trials involving digital hearing aids in the 20 trial hospitals under the Government pilot programme;[12169]

  (2) what research his Department has undertaken to assess the possibility of establishing a system to enable members of the public to purchase digital hearing aids at the cost price through the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [12170]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has commissioned the Institute of Hearing Research to evaluate the "modernising NHS hearing aid services" project. The final evaluation report will be available next year.

  The Department is not conducting research to evaluate allowing people to pay for digital hearing aids on the national health service. NHS hearing aid services, which include hearing tests, hearing aids and follow up care, are available free to children and adults who are resident in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what preliminary evaluation of the first wave sites in the digital hearing aid trial he has received; and if a copy will be placed in the Library. [12158]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has received interim evaluation reports based on data collected from a relatively small sample of patients from the Institute of Hearing Research in July and October. The evaluation is still ongoing, so reports have not been placed in the Library.

  The final evaluation report will be available next year.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what timescale his Department is working under to extend the pilot programme of provision of digital hearing aids to the rest of the NHS; and what plans his Department has made regarding the future funding of digital hearing aids on the NHS between 2002–03 and 2003–04. [12011]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Department expects to make decisions about extending the modernisation of national health service hearing aid services to other audiology departments from 2002–03, and about future funding of digital hearing aids on the NHS, in the light of the research evaluation which is being carried out by the Institute of Hearing Research.

  Twenty NHS trusts in England are fitting digital hearing aids as part of the "modernising NHS hearing aid services" project.

  BMA Guidance
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy relating to the British Medical Association's guidance on withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment; and what observations he has sent to the Association on this subject. [12225]

  Ms Blears
  The document issued by the British Medical Association aims to identify the range of clinical, ethical and legal factors which need to be considered in making decisions on withdrawing and withholding 356W
  medical treatment. It covers also potential procedures, including consulting the health care team and seeking a second opinion where necessary, which may assist in ensuring high quality decision-making in this area.

  The guidance is a helpful contribution on this subject for practitioners. We have not made any observations to the association on this subject and have no plans to do so.

  North Durham NHS Trust
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the(a) individuals invited for interview by the NHS Appointments Commission for the post of chair of the North Durham NHS Trust and (b) reasons for their selection for interview;[R] [11983]

  2. which (a) individuals and (b) organisations were consulted by the NHS Appointments Commission on the appointment of the chair of the North Durham NHS Trust; and if he will publish their comments;[R] [11984]

  3. what reasons were given by the NHS Appointments Commission for not reappointing Mr. Kevin Earley to the post of chair of the North Durham NHS Trust. [R] [11985]

  Ms Blears
  Appointment of chairs of national health service trusts is the responsibility of the NHS Appointments Commission. The appointments process they follow has been published and has been approved by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is an open and transparent process but rightly protects the identity of individual candidates and the assessment of their performance at interview or elsewhere. I understand that the Appointments Commission drew the advertisements for this appointment to the attention of local hon. Members and local authorities, but in accordance with their agreed procedures, did not consult on the appointment.

  Smoking-related Illnesses
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of expenditure in each of the last three financial years on NHS treatment of smoking-related illnesses. [12165]

  Ms Blears
  Treating illness and disease caused by smoking is estimated to cost the national health service up to £1.7 billion every year in terms of general practitioner visits, prescriptions, treatment and operations.

  Air Ambulance Services
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received regarding public funding of air ambulance services; and if he will make a statement;[12528]

  (2) which air ambulance services receive public funding. [12529]

  Ms Blears
  We have received a number of letters of support from a wide variety of organisations suggesting that there should be public funding of air ambulances. Evidence supporting the introduction of air ambulances in the national health service, however, is not convincing. In 1995, the Department commissioned Sheffield University to report on air ambulances. The report failed to show benefits which would justify NHS investment. However, in recognition of the growing public interest in this
  357W
  subject, further research has been commissioned into the contribution made by air ambulances in the care and transportation of seriously ill patients in a modem NHS. The Department will review the position on this issue when the outcome of this further research is available.

  Information on the funding of individual air ambulance services is not collected centrally.

  Social Services Departments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 559W, on the community care services special grant, if he will list the sources of the money allocated by his Department which previously were not earmarked for social services. [12094]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The £300 million allocated to councils over this year and next is additional funding for social care. £80 million of this funding has been provided by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and a further £20 million from Her Majesty's Treasury. The remaining £200 million will be found from unallocated funds within the Departmental expenditure limit.

  Hospital Meals
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost per hospital meal is(a) before and (b) after the implementation of the Government's better hospital food programme; and if he will make a statement. [12765]

  Ms Blears
  The better hospital food programme, announced in the NHS Plan, is designed to improve the quality and availability of food in hospitals. It is a long term programme, the first stage of which requires hospitals, by 31 December 2001 to ensure that their meal services meet or exceed required standards and meet nutritional requirements, to provide a 24-hour catering service so that patients can obtain food when they need it, to adopt the national design for menus, and to provide on their menus dishes designed for the National Health Service by the team of leading chefs.

  The initial stage of the programme is therefore about bringing standards up to the required level in places where they do not currently meet these.

  The costs of each component part of the programme will vary from hospital to be hospital, and will be affected by a range of factors including current levels of investment in catering services, the type of catering service in use and the number of patients choosing dishes designed by the leading chefs.

  Since hospitals are not required to implement the programme until 31 December 2001, and because at this stage costs will vary considerably, precise details regarding the average additional costs are not currently available. These will become available in the coming months.

  Once standards have been brought to a more equal level across the service, it will be easier to accurately forecast any additional costs of future improvements.

  Human Organs
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what Government bodies and agencies deal with matters referred to in the Chief Medical Officer's advice of January relating to the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue from post-mortem examination; what work has been undertaken by them; and what further work remains for them to do; [12373]

  (2) what recent study he has made of the psychological aspects of the removal and retention of human organs and tissue; what further work he plans; and how such work will be carried out; [12371]

  (3) what recent research he has undertaken on international practice relating to the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue; and if he will make a statement; [12372]

  (4) what action he proposes to take to put into practice the recommendations of the Chief Medical Officer in respect of the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue; [12370]

  (5) what work has been done on the recommendation from the Chief Medical Officer for a review of the legislation on organ donation; and when he is planning to begin consultations. [10958]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: We are committed to implementing the Chief Medical Officer's recommendations on the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue made in the light of the Redfern and Kennedy reports. The Department is principally responsible for this programme. We have established the Retained Organs Commission as a special health authority to oversee, among other things, the return of organs and tissue to families who want that to happen. The Home Office is leading a review of the coroners' system which was set up in July this year. Close links are being maintained between the two Departments and with the Commission.

  As part of the implementation programme, we shall shortly be consulting publicly on a number of documents, including codes of practice on communications with families about post mortems and on the import and export of body parts. Linked to the Department's wider "Good Practice in Consent" initiative, we shall be piloting consent forms for hospital post mortems and for consent to the post-mortem removal, retention and use of organs and tissue where such actions are not required by the Coroner. We shall be seeking views also on an interim statement on the use of organs and tissue, based on the current law.

  For the medium to longer term, the Department is leading a comprehensive review of the law in England and Wales which will examine, among other things, the taking, storage and use of organs and tissue from the living and the dead and options for future regulatory control. We shall be issuing an initial consultative paper on the review in the near future.

  As part of the review we shall be gathering further information about how these matters are treated in other countries, notably elsewhere in the European Union, in North America and in parts of the Commonwealth.
  359W
  We do not now propose to legislate separately to amend the Human Tissue Act 1961 to clarify that consent must be sought from those with parental responsibility for the retention of organs or tissue from post mortem on children beyond the time necessary to establish the cause of death. This proposal, as well as our intention to introduce a penalty for non-compliance, will be considered as part of the comprehensive review.

  We are aware that many families affected by organ removal and retention may require a range of support, including psychological support, from the statutory and voluntary services. On the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, we have made a clear commitment to improve bereavement services. We shall be considering what else may need to be done to meet individual and family needs; and whether the Department needs to commission any research or other survey on psychological aspects. The consultative process will have an important part to play here.

  CT Scanner (Blackpool Victoria Hospital)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide funding for an additional CT scanner at Blackpool Victoria Hospital. [12921]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: In the coming months, the Department will be drawing up and discussing the criteria for allocating a further 50 computer tomography scanners' nationally, funded through the NHS Cancer Plan for 2003–04. It is hoped that a list of sites will be agreed early in the next financial year. Blackpool Victoria Hospital can apply to be considered for an additional scanner under this initiative.

  Zyban
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received in the last six months on the safety of bupropion (Zyban). [12729]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Since the marketing of bupropion (Zyban) in June 2000, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been kept informed by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Government's independent expert scientific advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), on matters relating to its safety.

  In the last six months this has included the following CSM advice issued on 31 May 2001, the purpose of which was to minimise the risk of adverse effects especially seizures:

  (i) The dosing regimen should be amended to delay the increase in dose (from day four to day seven of treatment) in order to give more time for drug levels to stabilise.

  (ii) Existing warnings relating to the other risk factors for seizure should be strengthened to emphasise that Zyban should only be used in patients with these factors if there are compelling clinical reasons.

  The CSM has continued to review the balance between the effectiveness of Zyban in helping people to stop smoking, and the health benefits that this brings, with the risk of adverse effects. This balance is considered to remain favourable. There is some indication that the latest advice issued by CSM has helped to further improve the safe use of Zyban, since the rate of reporting of suspected
  360W
  adverse reactions in the United Kingdom has decreased since then. The CSM will continue to monitor its safety record of Zyban closely.

  Delayed Discharges
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition of a health and social care change agent is used in relation to investment in reducing delayed discharges. [12700]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: A health and social care change agent is defined as a member of the change agents team who addresses the issue of delayed discharge by practical action and advice to support local national health service and social services management. The work of the change agents is likely to cover local implementation of relevant standards of the National Service Framework for Older People, particularly including development of care trusts, where these may impact on bed blocking locally.

  NHS Magazine
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many copies of the NHS Magazine are sold per issue; and how many copies are distributed free of charge. [12702]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Twenty-two copies of NHS Magazine are sold to overseas and private sector subscribers per issue. The remaining 61,000 are distributed free of charge.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what involvement Ministers have in(a) writing the editorial page of the NHS Magazine and (b) sanctioning the content of articles. [12701]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Ministers do not see any of the content of NHS Magazine prior to publication. Content is approved by officials in the Department.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of is of producing NHS Plan News. [12726]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The average cost of producing NHS Plan News is 0.2p a copy.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of publishing the NHS Magazine is. [12703]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The average cost of publishing the NHS Magazine is 1.4p a copy.

  Service Agreements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the departmental public service agreements will be updated to reflect the commitments contained in the NHS National Plan. [12699]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Department's public service agreement already reflects the commitments contained in the NHS Plan. The public service agreement can be found at Annexe 3, page 142, of the NHS Plan.

  Ambulances
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow GPs to override telephone protocols when making emergency requests for ambulances. [12776]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Protocols for making emergency requests for ambulances are agreed locally between general practitioners and each ambulance trust. There are no plans to override these arrangements.

  All national health service ambulance trusts use call prioritisation systems. This means that calls to immediately life threatening conditions will get a quicker response. Ambulance services are required to take patients to hospitals that are identified by a doctor as urgent so that these patients arrive at hospital within 15 minutes of the arrival time specified by the doctor in 95 per cent. of cases.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) guidance and (b) instructions on performance levels have been given to the Isle of Wight ambulance service this year; and when, distinguishing that which is general to the ambulance services from that which is specific to the island's service. [12927]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Ambulance services in England measure their performance against a number of criteria. We place a high priority on performance in responding to category A calls, those calls which may be immediately life-threatening. There is no different standard on performance levels set for the Isle of Wight. All ambulance services, including that on the Isle of Wight, were originally set a target of reaching 75 per cent. of category A calls in eight minutes by 31 March 2001.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the target response time for non-urgent ambulance responses is; and what the average response time has been in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [12462]

  List of rapid access chest pain clinics

  Number/hospital

  NHS trust

  Northern and Yorkshire region

  1. Bradford Royal Infirmary

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  2. Sunderland Royal Hospital

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  3. Dewsbury and District Hospital

  Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust

  4. Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  Gateshead Health NHS Trust

  5. Hull Royal Infirmary

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  6. St. James' University Hospital

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  7. Hartlepool General Hospital

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  8. North Tyneside General Hospital

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  9. Wansbeck General Hospital

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  10. Pinderfields Hospital

  Pinderfields and Pontefract NHS Trust

  11. Pontefract General Infirmary

  Pinderfields and Pontefract NHS Trust

  12. Scarborough Hospital

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust

  13. Bishop Auckland General Hospital

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  14. Darlington Memorial Hospital

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  Trent region

  15. Barnsley District General Hospital

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  16. Bassetlaw District General Hospital

  Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust

  17. Doncaster Royal Infirmary

  Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust

  18. Scunthorpe General Hospital (and Goole Hospital)

  Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  19. Nottingham City Hospital

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  20. Nottingham University Hospital

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University NHS Trust

  21. Rotherham General Hospital

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  362W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: There are no nationally laid down standards for ambulance responses to patients with non-emergency illnesses and injuries.

  Information on response times for all National Health Service ambulance trusts is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000–01". A copy is in the Library and available at www.doh.uk/public/sb0115.htm.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds were in mixed sex wards in each of the last five years. [12717]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Hospital wards are usually subdivided into bays and these are designated male or female. Depending on case mix and local need, the exact proportion of male to female bays will vary. We are therefore unable to provide information at the level of the individual ward.

  The national health service is working to eliminate mixed sex accommodation. Guidance on maintaining privacy and dignity was first issued to the service in 1997 and since then NHS trusts have been working towards clear targets to promote privacy and dignity in hospital wards.

  These targets include the abolition of Nightingale wards for older people and £120 million has been allocated over the next three years to make progress towards this. Schemes to modify 233 wards have already been approved to commence work this year and further schemes will begin in the next two years.

  Chest Pain Clinics
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations of the rapid access chest pain clinics. [12724]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The information requested is in the table.
  363W

  List of rapid access chest pain clinics

  Number/hospital

  NHS trust

  22. Northern General Hospital

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  23. Royal Hallamshire Hospital

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  24. Kings Mill Centre for Health Care Services

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals

  25. Derbyshire Royal Infirmary

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  26. Grantham Hospital (and Skegness Hospital)

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  27. Lincoln County Hospital

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  28. Louth Hospital

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  29. Pilgrim Hospital

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  30. Glenfield General Hospital

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  West Midlands region

  31. Birmingham Heartlands Hospital

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust

  32. City Hospital

  City Hospital NHS Trust

  33. City General Hospital

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  34. Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  35. New Cross Hospital

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  36. Sandwell District General Hospital

  Sandwell Healthcare NHS Trust

  37. Walsall

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  38. Walsgrave Hospital

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

  39. Alexandra Hospital

  Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust

  40. Kidderminster General Hospital

  Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust

  41. Worcester Royal Infirmary

  Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust

  North West region

  42. University Hospital Aintree

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  43. Blackburn Royal Infirmary

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Healthcare NHS Trust

  44. Victoria Hospital

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  45. Royal Bolton Hospital

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  46. Burnley General Hospital

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  47. Bury General Hospital

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust

  48. Manchester Royal Infirmary

  Central Manchester and Manchester Childrens NHS Trust

  49. Chorley District General Hospital

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  50. Countess of Chester Hospital

  Countess of Chester NHS Trust

  51. Macclesfield District General Hospital

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  52. CTC Liverpool

  Liverpool Cardiothoracic Centre NHS Trust

  53. Leighton Hospital

  Mid Cheshire Hospital NHS Trust

  54. Furness General Hospital

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  55. Royal Lancaster Infirmary

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  56. Westmorland General Hospital

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  57. Halton General Hospital

  North Cheshire NHS Trust

  58. Warrington Hospital

  North Cheshire NHS Trust

  59. North Manchester General Hospital

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  60. Royal Oldham Hospital

  Oldham NHS Trust

  61. Royal Preston Hospital

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  62. Birchill Hospital

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  63. Royal Liverpool University Hospital

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Hospitals University NHS Trust

  64. Hope Hospital

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  65. Wythenshawe Hospital

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  66. Ormskirk and District General Hospital

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust

  67. Southport and Formby District General Hospital

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust

  68. Whiston Hospital

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital NHS Trust

  69. Stepping Hill Hospital

  Stockport NHS Trust

  70. Tameside General Hospital

  Tameside Acute Care NHS Trust

  71. Trafford General Hospital

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  72. Royal Albert Edward Infirmary

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  73. Arrowe Park Hospital

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  Eastern region

  74. Addenbrookes Hospital

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  75. Basildon Hospital

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  76. Lister Hospital

  East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  77. Queen Elizabeth II Hospital

  East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  78. Colchester General Hospital

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  79. Ipswich Hospital

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  80. James Paget Hospital

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  81. Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals NHS Trust

  82. Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  83. Broomfield Hospital

  Mid Essex Hospitals Services NHS Trust

  84. Princess Alexandra Hospital

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  85. Southend Hospital

  Southend Hospital NHS Trust

  86. Hemel Hempstead General Hospital

  West Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  87. Watford Hospital

  West Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  364W 365W

  List of rapid access chest pain clinics

  Number/hospital

  NHS trust

  London region

  88. King George Hospital

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  89. Oldchurch Hospital

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  90. Bamet General Hospital

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospital NHS Trust

  91. Bromley Hospital

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  92. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  93. Ealing Hospital

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  94. St. Helier Hospital

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  95. Charing Cross Hospital

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  96. Hammersmith Hospital

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  97. Homerton Hospital

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  98. Kingston Hospital

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  99. Lewisham University Hospital

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  100. Mayday University Hospital

  Mayday Health Care NHS Trust

  101. Newham General Hospital

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  102. North Middlesex Hospital

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  103. Central Middlesex Hospital

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  104. Northwick Park Hospital

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  105. Queen Mary's Hospital

  Queen Mary's, Sidcup NHS Trust

  106. St. George's Hospital

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  107. St. Mary's Hospital

  St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust

  108. Whipps Cross Hospital

  Whipps Cross University Hospitals NHS Trust.

  109. Whittington Hospital

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  110. Queen Mary's Roehampton

  South West London Community Trust

  South East

  111. Ashford Hospital, Middlesex

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust

  112. St. Peter's Hospital

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust

  113. Royal Sussex County Hospital

  Blefton Health Care NHS Trust

  114. Darent Valley Hospital

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  115. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  116. Eastbourne District General Hospital

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  117. Conquest Hospital

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  118. Wexham Park Hospital

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  119. Kettenng General Hospital

  Kettenng General Hospital NHS Trust

  120. Medway Maritime Hospital

  Medway NHS Trust

  121. Milton Keynes General Hospital

  Milton Keynes General NHS Trust

  122. North Hampshire Hospital

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  123. Northampton General Hospital

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  124. Horton Hospital

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  125. John Radcliffe Hospital

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  126. St. Mary's Hospital

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  127. Royal Berkshire Hospital

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  128. Royal Surrey County Hospital

  Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust

  129. St. Richards Hospital

  Royal West Sussex NHS Trust

  130. Wycombe Hospital

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  131. Southampton General Hospital

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  132. Crawley Hospital

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

  133. East Surrey Hospital

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

  134. Worthing Hospital

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  South West

  135. Cheltenham General Hospital

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  136. Yeovil District Hospital

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  137. Gloucestershire Royal Hospital

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  138. Frenchay Hospital

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  139. Southmead Hospital

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  140. North Devon District Hospital

  Northern Devon Healthcare Trust

  141. Derriford Hospital

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  142. Poole Hospital

  Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  143. Royal Bournemouth Hospital

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Trust

  144. Royal Cornwall Hospital

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals and West Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust

  145. Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital

  Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust

  146. Royal United Hospital Bath

  Royal United Hospitals, Bath NHS Trust

  147. Salisbury District Hospital

  Salisbury Health Care NHS Trust

  148. Torbay Hospital

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  149. Princess Margaret Hospital

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  150. Taunton and Somerset Hospital

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  151. Bristol Royal Infirmary

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  152. Dorset County Hospital

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  153. Weston General Hospital

  Weston Area NHS Trust

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the expenditure on the Public Health Laboratory Service for each of the past five years. [12719]

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Revenue expenditure

  109,696

  118,899

  120,392

  125,751

  129,836

  Capital expenditure

  3,539

  3,892

  3,624

  4,067

  4,567

  Total

  113,235

  122,791

  124,016

  129,818

  134,403

  Welfare Foods Scheme
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the detailed expenditure plans of the welfare foods scheme. [12720]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The planned net programme expenditure on welfare foods in 2001–02 is £114.5 million for England. No decisions have been made about future years.

  Occupational Health and Safety Service
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on establishing the Occupational Health and Safety Service for general practitioners. [12770]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: £6 million was included in health authority main allocations in England for commissioning occupational health and safety services for general medical practitioners and their staff during 2001–02. Guidance on the provision and range of service delivery standards was issued to health authorities on 28 June 2001.

  GPs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making on achieving 48-hour access to general practitioners. [12772]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Health authorities were asked to set plans to achieve 48 hour access for 60 per cent. of patients by April 2002. These plans are being monitored through the usual performance management mechanisms. The 60 per cent. milestone is the first on the way to achieving 100 per cent. coverage by 2004.

  As part of regular performance monitoring, health authorities were asked to carry out a survey of primary care access on 26 September. Data from the survey are currently being analysed and will be available shortly.

  Overseas Health Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the legislation required to enable health authorities and primary care trusts to send patients abroad for routine treatment. [12766]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The recent judgments of the European Court of Justice in the joined cases Geraets-Smits/Peerbooms and Case Vanbraekel (joined Cases C-157/99 and Case 368–98 respectively) marked a development in the interpretation
  368W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The gross expenditure on the Public Health Laboratory Service for each of the past five years is given in the table. These figures are in cash terms for the whole period.

  of directly applicable provisions of European Community law. The cases concerned the interpretation of directly applicable Treaty provisions and these have to be applied even in the face of inconsistent domestic law.

  The relevant provisions of the National Health Service Act 1977 will be amended in the interests of legal certainty. This can be done by regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 and this is in hand. In the meantime health authorities and primary care trusts are legally able to commission services abroad.

  Working with the three test-bed sites, the Department is examining the detailed practical and legal issues involved in sending patients abroad. This work may raise legal issues requiring further amendments to specific regulations.

  Overseas Doctors
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests of linguistic aptitude will be taken by doctors from EU countries applying to work in the NHS. [12708]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: European Economic Area doctors (and others with enforceable Community rights) do not have to prove to the registration authority that they have a knowledge of English in order to have their qualifications recognised in the United Kingdom.

  National health service employers themselves are responsible for ensuring that the doctors they employ have the necessary language, communication and professional skills to carry out their jobs safely.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve research and development in each of the NHS regions. [12727]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: As the Minister with responsibility for research at the Department, my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath announced in March 2000 plans for the modernisation of national health service research and development funding set out in "Research and Development for a First Class Service". They included the establishment of a funding system for NHS priorities and needs research and development, which should be introduced in 2002–03. This system will open new avenues for funding research activity across the NHS and replace in a more co-ordinated way the support hitherto provided from

  369W
  budgets held at the Department's regional offices. I am placing in the Library a copy of a position paper published in February 2001.

  Widdrington Health Centre
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between NHS officials and the district valuer about the planned Widdrington Health Centre, Northumberland; and whether agreement has been reached in time for the funds available from the single regeneration budget to be used for the project. [13122]

  Jacqui Smith
  Discussions between Northumberland health authority and the district valuer, concerning the rental levels for the buildings of the new Widdrington Health Centre, are ongoing and a final settlement is expected very shortly. Single Regeneration Budget funds have been identified to provide optometry and dental facilities within the health centre and agreement has been reached for these funds to be used within the 2001–02 and 2002–03 financial years.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Correspondence/Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon. Member's correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) House of Commons and (ii) House of Lords; [7019]

  (2) if he will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement. [7020]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  General information on the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and on overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures for 2000 were published on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 324–28W and on 19 July 2001, columns 454–56W.

  Numbers leaving NDLP by destination to July 2001—Great Britain

  Thousand

  Left income support

  Still on income support

  Period

  Total

  Employment1

  Transfer to other benefits2

  Ineligible3

  Employment1,4

  Withdrawn for other reasons5

  Unknown destination6

  October 1998-September 1999

  Age of youngest child7

  0–4

  7.66

  2.10

  0.04

  0.15

  0.07

  4.79

  0.50

  5–11

  7.46

  2.11

  0.03

  0.12

  0.09

  4.65

  0.46

  12–16

  1.89

  0.60

  0.06

  0.07

  0.02

  1.03

  0.11

  Not recorded8

  6.50

  4.38

  0.11

  0.31

  0.02

  1.45

  0.23

  370W

  Total number of parliamentary questions by parliamentary session since 1995

  Percentage

  Session

  Total

  Over one month

  Over three months

  Commons

  1995–96

  2,667

  1.50

  0

  1996–97

  17

  0

  0

  1997–98

  3,666

  1.67

  0

  1998–99

  2,173

  0.41

  0

  1999–2000

  2,878

  0.14

  0.04

  2000–01

  1,254

  0.56

  0

  Lords

  1995–96

  148

  0

  0

  1996–97

  2

  0

  0

  1997–98

  208

  2.4

  0

  1998–99

  0

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  151

  0

  0

  2000–01

  43

  0

  0

  Workstep Programme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the workstep programme, with particular reference to(a) progression to open employment and (b) maintenance of an infrastructure for sheltered employment. [11318]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Workstep was introduced on 1 April 2001 and replaces the supported employment programme. It is designed to help disabled people progress to working without support and to provide longer-term support for those who need it. Our targets for progression into open employment are around 10 per cent. from among existing participants and 30 per cent. from people joining Workstep after 1 April this year.

  However, we have been very clear that no one should be pressurised to progress from the programme if this is not the right choice for them. Longer-term support will still be available for supported employees who need it. But it is equally important that they have access to the development opportunities the programme will offer in the longer-term.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many left the new deal for lone parents whose youngest child is aged(a) five to 11 and (b) 11 to 16 years in each year since the inception of the new deal, broken down by destination. [9643]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.
  371W

  Numbers leaving NDLP by destination to July 2001—Great Britain

  Thousand

  Left income support

  Still on income support

  Period

  Total

  Employment1

  Transfer to other benefits2

  Ineligible3

  Employment1,4

  Withdrawn for other reasons5

  Unknown destination6

  October 1999-September 2000

  Age of youngest child7

  0–4

  21.74

  10.65

  0.13

  0.54

  0.11

  9.60

  0.72

  5–11

  20.80

  11.00

  0.09

  0.45

  0.17

  8.45

  0.64

  12–16

  5.93

  3.32

  0.34

  0.24

  0.02

  1.81

  0.20

  Not recorded8

  4.12

  2.02

  0.06

  0.16

  0.03

  1.70

  0.16

  October 2000-July 2001

  Age of youngest child7

  0–4

  20.24

  10.27

  0.12

  0.55

  0.09

  8.63

  0.58

  5–11

  17.94

  9.76

  0.08

  0.40

  0.13

  7.08

  0.49

  12–16

  5.76

  3.33

  0.37

  0.20

  0.04

  1.67

  0.15

  Not recorded8

  1.34

  0.53

  0.03

  0.08

  0.00

  0.64

  0.06

  1 These totals do not include people who have moved into full-time work but remain on the NDLP caseload as they are in receipt of in-work support.

  2 Includes those making a claim for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) in order to join the New Deal for 18–24 year olds or the new deal for the long-term unemployed. Excludes lone parents who claim JSA in order to access work based learning for adults/training for work.

  3 Those lone parents who become ineligible for NDLP due to a change in circumstances, e.g. partnering.

  4 Lone parents working less than 16 hours in an average week, and remaining on income support. A very small number found employment after their initial interview but before joining the caseload. These are no counted in the "Total" leavers column.

  5 Lone parents who leave the programme but remain on income support for a number of reasons, e.g. change in childcare arrangements, new additions to the family, etc.

  6 Currently it is not known whether these people are on income support or not.

  7 Age of youngest child when attended initial interview.

  8 This figure includes children from each of the above age ranges.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Jobcentre Plus
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which is the most accessible pathfinder jobcentre available to residents in the Vale of York; and if he will make a statement on the type of advice which will be provided by that jobcentre. [8274]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are establishing a new business that draws together the Employment Service and the parts of the Benefits Agency which support people of working age. This new business is called Jobcentre Plus and will come into being at the end of this financial year. To demonstrate the improved and more work-focused service we intend to offer in Jobcentre Plus, we are putting in place around 49 pathfinder offices throughout the country from 22 October.

  Jobcentre Plus will offer a significantly enhanced telephone service that will improve access to the service for those who do not live near a Jobcentre Plus office. Each Jobcentre Plus pathfinder office will have a dedicated telephone contact centre open from 8.30am to 6.00pm. Customers will be able to make their initial claim to benefit through this service and book appointments with personal advisers. Customers will also be able to access job vacancies over the telephone through Employment Service Direct.

  Jobcentre Plus will also have its own internet site with information on the service and links to the Employment Service job bank and worktrain sites, which offer a vast range of job and training opportunities and advice on job searching.
  372W
  There are several Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices in rural locations, and the managers in those places will be further developing the service they offer to meet the needs of rural communities.

  The development of services for people in rural communities is not confined to the Jobcentre Plus pathfinders, with both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service already undertaking valuable outreach work. In North Yorkshire, for example, the Northallerton and Richmond Jobcentres are engaged in outreach work to some of their outlying rural areas. Vacancy lists are put on display in a large number of local post offices and Jobcentre clinics are held in three locations—Hawes, Leyburn and Catterick—for half a day each week.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in the new Jobcentre Plus offices(a) have been fully trained, (b) are undertaking training programmes and (c) are waiting to begin their training. [11223]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  3,840 staff in the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices have been fully trained, 648 are undertaking training programmes and 295 are waiting to begin their training. Over 80 per cent. of staff are fully trained as of 30 October. Every member of staff should be fully trained by the end of November.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received regarding safety procedures and safety precautions in Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices; and if he will make a statement. [11113]
  373W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus is a new service which brings together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency which deal with people of working age. Jobcentre Plus will provide a far more personalised, customer friendly and work-focused service for both employers and individuals. The first 49 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices opened on 22 October.

  Central to the new service is our ability to provide face-to-face advice to members of the public. That can be done only in a predominantly unscreened environment. To that end we have invested considerable sums of money in building a far more friendly and safer environment than any we have had in the past. In particular, we take the issue of the safety of both the public and our staff very seriously. We have therefore been involved in discussions with the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) about their members' concerns about the new working arrangements, both at national and local level.

  Employment Service and Land Securities Trillium risk assessors have carried out risk assessments in each pathfinder office. Drawing on those assessments, and following consultation with local trade union health and safety representatives, we have introduced a series of extra security measures. These include: wide coverage by closed circuit television; training for staff in how to handle difficult situations; better management in each office to avoid difficult situations building up; panic alarms; and more visible and more effective security guards. Additionally, in each pathfinder area there are screened facilities to deal with individuals and parts of the business which pose a greater risk. All pathfinder risk assessments will be reviewed in November and any additional security measures recommended by these reviews will be introduced. We believe that these measures demonstrate that we are taking staff safety seriously.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations his Department has received about the layout and furnishings of the new Jobcentre Plus offices. [11261]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus is a new service which brings together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency which deal with people of working age. Jobcentre Plus will provide a far more personalised, customer friendly and work-focused service for both employers and individuals. The first 49 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices opened on 22 October. Central to this new service is our ability to provide face-to-face advice to members of the public. That can be done only in a predominantly unscreened environment.

  We have been involved in lengthy discussions with the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) regarding our proposals in respect of layout and furnishings including the generic risk assessment process. We have also consulted with the Health and Safety Executive and professionals in the field of office design.

  We have consequently invested considerable sums of money in building a friendly and safe environment which not only looks radically different but also supports the service delivery aspirations of Jobcentre Plus.
  374W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what resources will be available to staff in the new Jobcentre Plus offices to ensure that claimants are made aware of their full benefit entitlement. [11254]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus is a new service which brings together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency which deal with people of working age. Jobcentre Plus will provide a far more personalised, customer friendly and work-focused service for both employers and individuals. The first 49 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices opened on 22 October.

  People wanting to make a claim to benefit in Jobcentre Plus offices will be encouraged to make initial contact by phone. The member of staff in the call centre will use a script which is designed to help them identify the customer's benefit entitlement. The customer will then have an appointment in a Jobcentre Plus office. At this meeting a member of customer service staff, who is specially trained in benefit information, will explore the customer's benefit needs in more detail. The benefits systems will also support staff in providing full and detailed advice across welfare benefits.

  Customers will also be offered review meetings, which will allow Jobcentre Plus staff to keep in touch with them from both a labour market and a benefit perspective.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training programmes have been initiated in order to ensure that all staff in the new Jobcentre Plus offices are able to provide claimants with the best service possible. [11264]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Each individual member of staff within the Jobcentre Plus pathfinders has their training needs identified in conjunction with their line manager. This information then forms a personal training plan for that individual. The training is planned so that when they are required to start their job, they have completed and consolidated all their necessary training.

  The training programmes fit into three different areas: IT and telephony, procedural, and the "New Beginnings" programme. The latter introduces the individual to the new Jobcentre Plus new culture and expectations. The procedural training is job specific and ensures that individuals know how to do their job. The IT and telephony training shows staff how to use the new IT and telephony systems.

  The three types of training, delivered to the right people at the right time, has ensured and will ensure that individuals have the skills, knowledge and confidence to deliver the best service possible to the public within Jobcentre Plus.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to discuss recent trends in occupational pension provision with the occupational pension industry; and if he will make a statement. [12441]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department holds regular meetings with representatives of the pensions industry. These discussions include an assessment of trends in occupational pension schemes and other forms of retirement savings and the role Government can play in supporting and encouraging pension provision.
  375W
  The Government acknowledge the contribution that occupational pension schemes play in the provision of income in retirement and want to encourage continued employer involvement. As part of the process of reform and support, we have already announced the replacement of the minimum funding requirement and the simplification review of pensions regulation, led by Alan Pickering.

  Social Security Regulations
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reason was given to him by the Social Security Advisory Committee for its decision not to examine the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001; what discussions he had with the Social Security Advisory Committee prior to that decision; and if he will publish the minutes of such discussions. [12159]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The Social Security Advisory Committee considered these regulations and decided, under section 173 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, that these regulations need not be formally referred to them. Under the Act the committee is not obliged to give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a reason for its decision and does not normally do so. My right hon. Friend had no discussions with the committee prior to that decision.

  Social Security (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the level of spending on social security in Scotland in each of the last five years(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the United Kingdom total, broken down to show spending on (i) benefit payments, (ii) Scotland's pro-rata share of United Kingdom administration costs and (iii) actual spending on central and local administration and the branch network for facilities in Scotland. [12193]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Information is not available in the format requested. However, analysis of social security expenditure by country, region and per head of population for the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000 is available in HM Treasury's publication "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2001–02", published in April 2001 under Command Number 5101.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of forgery of the standard acknowledgement letters issued to asylum seekers have been detected in the last 12 months; and what the value of benefits involved was. [11743]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The information is as follows.

  1. Figures are not kept centrally within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for forgery of Standard Acknowledgement Letters (SALs). The Immigration Service National Forgery Section (NFS) is a national unit specialising in document fraud. In the last 12 months (from 31 October 2000 to 31 October 2001), the NFS was asked by the Immigration Service and other enforcement agencies or departments to examine 121 SALs of which 111 were found to be fraudulent. Of these, 104 were counterfeit and seven forged.

  376W

  2. Many of the documents examined by NFS were examples of large batches of suspected fraudulent SALs detected in various operations conducted by the police and Immigration Service. Four such operations alone, conducted in various parts of the country during the past 12 months, are known to have involved over 2,000 counterfeit SALs, with more detections expected as operations continue.

  3. In the operations which the NFS was associated with, the most frequent use of fraudulent SALs was to obtain illegal employment. While a limited number of examinations of SALs were conducted of documents presented at Benefits Agency offices, the NFS does not have information about the value of any benefits that might have been involved.

DEFENCE

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the new date for the withdrawal of HMS Fearless is; and if he will make a statement. [13282]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no new date for the withdrawal of HMS Fearless. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 93W.

  Tanks (Desert Conditions)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of converting the tanks of 1 UK Armoured Division for desert conditions. [13272]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 5 November 2001,Official Report, columns 24–25W, which sets out the estimated cost of converting Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks (CR2 MBTs) for desert conditions. The establishment for one (UK) Armoured Division, post Strategic Defence Review, is 174 CR2 MBTs. Depending on which desertation option were used, the estimated cost for 174 CR2 MBTs would therefore be either £24.36 million or £43.5 million.

  Exercise Saif Sareea
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the type and number of UK armoured vehicles and tanks that were in Oman for Saif Sareea II, stating in each case the percentage of those vehicles that were considered(a) fully serviceable and (b) unserviceable during the exercise; and if he will make a statement. [11768]

  Mr. Ingram
  The types and number of each UK armoured vehicle, including tanks, that were in Oman for Saif Sareea II, are as follows: 65 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks; 49 Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles; 12 AS90 self propelled artillery; and 269 reconnaissance and other armoured vehicles.
  377W
  The serviceability of these vehicles varied through the exercise as they passed through operational and maintenance cycles. The average percentage availability of each armoured vehicle type throughout the main period of the exercise was as follows: Challenger 2 83 per cent.; Warrior 83 per cent.; AS90 71 per cent.; and reconnaissance and other armoured vehicles 80 per cent.

  Overall the armoured vehicle fleet, and indeed the rest of the UK military equipment deployed on Saif Sareea, performed very effectively.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the percentage rate of serviceability of helicopters on exercise Saif Sareea was; what the principal cause of helicopter non-serviceability was; and if he will make a statement. [13293]

  Mr. Hoon
  The average rate of helicopter serviceability achieved during the whole period of Exercise Saif Sareea was 54.5 per cent. The overall serviceability of helicopters on the exercise was affected by the requirement to conduct non-exercise related maintenance on a number of airframes. More generally, Exercise Saif Sareea provided our aviation assets with valuable experience of operating in a demanding desert environment. The impact on overall serviceability was one of a number of key factors. There was no single, principal cause of helicopter unserviceability.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the conclusions of the evaluation of equipment deployed in Operation Saif Sareea. [13279]

  Mr. Hoon
  The process of evaluating performance during Exercise Saif Sareea and identifying lessons for our future operations and exercises is already under way, and will address equipment serviceability. Much of the information captured in this process will be of an operationally sensitive nature. Accordingly, there are no plans to publish it.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from ground support staff at Yeovilton about the proposal to relocate the Sea Harriers; and if he will make a statement. [13425]

  Mr. Ingram
  No representations have been received about the proposal to relocate the Sea Harriers.

  Nuclear Installations (Security)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to deploy(a) armed forces personnel and (b) reservists for key point duty to guard nuclear power stations; and if he will estimate the full cost of such a deployment over one year. [13278]

  Mr. Ingram
  Security at nuclear power stations is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and the police, who can request the support of the armed forces to guard these and other key points should other resources prove insufficient. There have been no such requests during the last year and costs would, in the event, fall to the requesting authority.
  378W
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the US Defence Secretary on the issue of air exclusion zones over civil nuclear plants; whether there is to be a joint US-UK policy on this issue; and if he will make a statement on current RAF plans to defend the Sellafield nuclear site from aerial attack. [13235]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 11 September, Ministers and officials in a number of Government Departments have been in discussions with their US counterparts on a range of domestic security issues, though not specifically about air exclusion zones over civil nuclear plants.

  The Royal Air Force has an established and well-practised air defence capability which is ready to detect, deter and destroy any aircraft intending to attack any target within the UK, including civil nuclear plants. Some improvements have been made to our air defence posture since 11 September. I am withholding details of these improvements in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Nor can I disclose the details of security measures taken at individual civil nuclear sites.

  Support Amphibious and Battlefield Rotorcraft Project
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce an initial acquisition contract for the SABR project; and if he will make a statement. [13281]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Support Amphibious and Battlefield Rotorcraft programme is designed to replace the capability provided by the Sea King Mk4 and Puma helicopter around the turn of the decade. The project is in its early stages and we have yet to decide how the capability requirement will best be met. It is too soon, therefore, to say when acquisition contracts might be placed.

  Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about(a) the composition of and (b) the work of the Specialist Ethnic Minority Recruiting and Diversity Action Teams. [13113]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ethnic Minority Recruiting Teams (named 'Diversity Action Team' in the naval service) consist of a mix of ranks, male and female, who are chosen with the aim of providing approachable role models for potential recruits. Team members are based in areas with high ethnic minority populations.

  The naval service team consists of two officers, three senior ratings and five junior ratings with two civilians. The Army team consists of one officer and five senior NCOs, supplemented by a further nine junior NCOs who are volunteers from their units and serve on six month attachments. The RAF team consists of one officer, seven senior NCOs and four junior NCOs.

  The teams work with the ethnic minority target audience to raise awareness of the armed forces, help to provide individuals with an accurate picture of life in each service, and provide advice on the career opportunities the services offer. They participate in many events and activities across the UK, such as careers fairs, visits to

  379W
  schools and colleges, community cultural and religious centres and youth organisations. They give presentations and talk to ethnic minority youth, offer careers advice and help candidates prepare for interviews, and nurture potential candidates.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken to meet the capability requirement of the European Security and Defence Policy's Headline Goal. [13285]

  Mr. Hoon
  At last year's Capability Commitments Conference, the UK identified a pool of forces and capabilities as its contribution towards achievement of the Headline Goal. All national contributions to the Headline Goal are made on a voluntary basis. Their commitment to an individual operation would depend on priorities and other commitments at the time.

  UK forces can operate across the full range of Petersberg tasks, including the most demanding. In the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki—a corps level deployment of up to 60,000—the UK component could be about 12,500 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft could be made in addition.

  At the forthcoming Capabilities Improvement Conference, I will present further information on UK plans aimed at addressing some of the shortfalls identified since last year's conference. The UK contribution is and will continue to be consistent with our commitments to NATO. It is high quality and focused on key enabling capabilities.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next meeting between the European Security and Defence Policy's political and military committees and their NATO counterparts will take place. [13284]

  Mr. Hoon
  The EU's Political and Security Committee (PSC) and NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC) as well as the EU's and NATO's respective Military Committees meet on a regular basis and at least once per Presidency. Further meetings may be requested.

  Both of the mandated meetings have already been held during the current Belgian Presidency, although a further meeting between the two Military Committees is provisionally planned for 3 December 2001. Meetings will be programmed during the forthcoming Spanish Presidency between January and June 2002; a PSC/NAC meeting is provisionally planned for 14 May 2002.

  Fylingdales and Menwith Hill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of(a) Fylingdales and (b) Menwith Hill in performing communications services in connection with action against terrorism. [12066]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Fylingdales provides the UK with early warning of ballistic missile attack against the UK and Western Europe, and the US with early warning for North America. It does not perform a communications role.
  380W
  RAF Menwith Hill is an integral part of the world-wide US Department of Defense communications network. which supports UK, US and NATO interests. Information concerning detailed operations at the base, including any role in performing communications services in connection with actions against terrorism, is withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information on the grounds of national security.

  Defence Aviation and Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of the investment appraisal conducted by the Defence Aviation Repair Agency into options to provide modern infrastructure for its Aircraft Business Unit, referred to on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 8W. [12445]

  Mr. Ingram
  The investment appraisal looking into the infrastructure options for DARA' s Fixed Wing Aircraft Business Unit is due to be completed in January 2002.

  UK Service Men (Race Relations)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice his Department provides to UK service men to inform them of their rights under the Race Relations Act 1976 when working on sovereign bases overseas; and if he will make a copy available in the Library. [12735]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces aim to achieve a working environment free from harassment, intimidation and unlawful discrimination wherever personnel are located. Guidance disseminated by the armed services reflects this policy and makes clear that any individual has the right to pursue a complaint through the internal redress procedures. All such complaints are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. Although the Race Relations Act 1976 may not in all circumstances apply to personnel serving in the sovereign bases overseas, our own policies and internal procedures do not differentiate between service personnel in different locations.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is possible for UK service men serving on sovereign bases overseas to bring a case against the Ministry of Defence under the Race Relations Act 1976. [12758]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate on racial grounds against an employee in relation to employment at an establishment in Great Britain. In this context sovereign bases do not form part of the territory of Great Britain.

  Section 8 of the Race Relations Act provides that employment will be regarded as being at an establishment in Great Britain unless the employee does his work wholly outside Great Britain. Therefore, whether a member of the armed forces serving on a sovereign base (or elsewhere outside Great Britain) could bring a complaint under the Race Relations Act 1976 would depend upon whether the alleged act or acts of discrimination took place at a time when he or she worked wholly outside Great Britain. If the complaint related to a period when that person did not work wholly outside Great Britain then the Act would be applicable.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what allowance he has made for using existing aircraft on the new aircraft carriers. [13007]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) will be configured to operate the Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) as its primary aircraft. In addition to FJCA, the current CVF requirement document sets out a number of aircraft which should be considered for operation in a secondary role. This includes existing fixed and rotary wing aircraft which are compatible with carrier operations. Use of existing aircraft will depend. among other things, on their operational capability when CVF enters service—currently planned for 2012.

  Gibraltar Regiment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to recruit from the Gibraltar regiment in order to offset the shortfall in armed forces personnel. [13010]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no such plans.

  Armed Forces (Non-married Partners)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many servicemen and women are living with partners to whom they are not married but who are recognised as falling within the scope of benefits payable under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [12641]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. Unmarried partners are not currently recognised as eligible for benefits under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. We have no reliable data on the numbers affected. All three services are currently involved in work to examine whether or not unmarried people living in partnership should receive benefits similar to those received by married couples. This work is designed to provide more factual and authoritative information than is currently available, including on numbers.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces occupy married quarters with partners to whom they are not married. [12639]

  Dr. Moonie
  Entitlement to Service Families Accommodation (SFA) is based mainly on marital status and includes lone parents with dependent children for whom they have prime responsibility. It is also applied to certain single service personnel when serving in specific appointments. Service personnel are not allowed to occupy SFA to cohabit with a partner who is not their legal spouse. If such cases come to light, they are advised that they are in breach of their licence, and unless they regularise the position, they are issued with a notice to vacate the property.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the rules governing death-in-service benefits for the non-married partners of servicemen and women are within the scope of the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [12640]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following a review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, proposals for a new scheme were issued for public consultation in March of this year. These 382W
  proposals did not specifically cover benefits for unmarried partners though the issue had been considered during the initial stage of the review when it was considered that change was not appropriate. The issue was raised in responses to the public consultation and will be given further consideration as we take the review forward.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  HMP Downview
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will decide on whether HMP Downview will be a local prison; and if he will make a statement. [11639]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The tactical use of the prison estate is a matter for the Director General of the Prison Service. The particular type of prisoner that is held in each prison changes depending on the profile of the national prison population. The Prison Service Management Board regularly reviews the use of the estate. The current pressure on women's prisons means that Downview is being used to hold convicted and sentenced prisoners.

  The Prison Service will continue to identify the most suitable accommodation for the projected numbers and types of prisoners: this will include consideration on whether Downview will hold remand prisoners.

  I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is advised if the decision is taken to place remand prisoners into Downview.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the costs broken down to include overtime, detached duty allowances and hotel costs arising from employment of female prison staff detached from other prisons to HMP Downview between 17 July and 31 December. [11641]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: Regular assessments are made on the continued need for the employment of female staff from other prisons at Downview. The number of staff required is dependent on the need to safely accommodate the numbers of women sent to prison custody by the courts.

  Female detached duty staff commenced during October reaching a maximum of 20 officers. Based on this staffing level, the monthly costs are estimated to be £57,000 for detached duty costs (including accommodation costs) and £16,200 for contract hours (overtime). Were this staffing level to remain until 31 December, the estimate for the total costs is £171,000 for detached duty costs and £48,600 for contract hours.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate he has made of the cost of renovating C wing at HMP Downview to be suitable for female remand prisoners; and what account was taken of such estimates in the advice which he received on converting Downview to a female prison. [11642]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: A decision has not yet been taken on whether Downview prison will hold remand prisoners. Initial views are that C wing does not lend itself for an easy or cost-effective

  383W
  conversion to hold remand prisoners. Detailed estimates for such a renovation or for replacing it with a new accommodation block have not yet been carried out.

  The decision to select Downview as the prison needing to change function to hold women prisoners was based on a number of criteria including its geographical location, ability to relocate the existing male population and an assessment of the future shape of the prison estate. Funding for a change of function had been secured under a previous spending review settlement; the Prison Service has not requested further funding for this change. I will ensure that the hon. Member is advised if the decision is taken to place remand prisoners into Downview.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of racial harassment were reported to the National Asylum Support Service's Investigations Team by asylum seekers, concerning the behaviour of accommodation providers or their agents in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, broken down by (i) month and (ii) region. [13046]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The number of allegations of racial harassment reported to the National Asylum Support Service Investigations Team concerning the behaviour of accommodation providers or their agents in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001 is as follows:

  Year/Month

  Number

  2000

  October

  6

  November

  3

  December

  3

  2001

  January

  2

  February

  2

  March

  4

  April

  4

  May

  2

  June

  1

  July

  0

  August

  1

  September

  4

  October

  1

  The figures are not broken down by region. These figures represent the reports which the Investigation Section received and information on who reported the incident is not recorded. Figures are unavailable for the period before the Investigations Team became fully operational.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum applicants were removed from the UK in each month since 1 April; and how many of these were(a) principal applicants and (b) dependants of a principal applicant. [13050]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The number of asylum seekers who were removed from the United Kingdom in each month from April 2001 onwards is given in the table. Information more recent than June is not yet available.
  384W

  Month

  Total asylum seekers1 removed2.3

  Principal applicants removed2,3

  Dependants removed2,3

  April

  830

  780

  55

  May

  915

  870

  45

  June

  840

  730

  115

  1 Persons who had sought asylum at some point.

  2 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest five. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  3 Includes persons departing voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum appeals, having been received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, are awaiting onward transmission to the Immigration Appellate Authority; and how many asylum appeals, having been forwarded by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, are awaiting determination by the Immigration Appellate Authority. [13049]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: Provisional data indicate that on 31 July 2001 there were approximately 41,000 asylum appeals lodged with Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) which had not been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). For every appeal lodged, IND has to review the grounds advanced and may as a consequence need to reconsider all the circumstances of the case. Appeals are not forwarded to the IAA until this consideration has been completed and appeal papers have been prepared.

  On 31 July 2001 there were approximately 17,010 asylum cases awaiting determination by the IAA at adjudicator level, 981 cases awaiting leave to appeal to the Immigration Appellate Tribunal and 824 cases awaiting determination by the Immigration Appellate Tribunal.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of racial harassment were reported to the National Asylum Support Service's Investigations Team by asylum seekers, concerning the behaviour of resident communities in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, broken down by (i) month and (ii) region; and if he will make a statement. [13045]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The number of allegations of racial harassment reported to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) Investigations Team concerning the behaviour of resident communities in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001 is as follows:

  Number

  2000

  May

  1 4

  June

  119

  July

  138

  August

  146

  September

  136

  October

  27

  November

  32

  December

  25

  2001

  January

  39

  February

  61

  March

  44

  April

  42

  385W

  Number

  May

  56

  June

  65

  July

  61

  August

  96

  September

  58

  October

  112

  1 The Performance Monitoring Investigations Section (PMI) became fully operational in October 2000. Figures prior to October 2000 represent those cases reported to the Investigations Sections. Further allegations may have been investigated within the wider Operations Section within NASS but there are no statistics for this.

  The figures are not broken down by region. These figures represent the reports which the Investigation Section received and information on who reported the incident is not recorded.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken from receipt of an asylum appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority is, (b) determination of the appeal by an adjudicators and(c) final determination of the appeal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. [13048]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: For the 12 months ending 31 July 2001, data from the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) for those cases where data are available indicate that the cumulative average times taken from the receipt of an asylum appeal by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to:

  (a) the receipt of an appeal by the IAA is eight weeks;

  (b) the determination by an adjudicator is 24 weeks;

  (c) the final determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is 42 weeks.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications are awaiting an initial decision by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [13052]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The most recent available figure shows 43,100 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision at the end of August 2001. This figure has been rounded to the nearest hundred. A physical count was ordered by the Home Secretary to ensure absolute validity of the statistics. Problems with the backlog figures had arisen from an accumulation of errors since the last manual count of outstanding asylum applications in 1996.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum applicants were removed from the UK in each financial year since 1993–94. [13051]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The information requested, where available, is given in the table. These figures exclude dependants. Financial year information prior to 1995–96 is not available.

  Year

  Asylum seekers1 removed2,3

  1995–96

  3,540

  1996–97

  5,705

  1997–98

  7,010

  1998–99

  7,185

  1999–2000

  7,915

  2000–01

  48,930

  386W
  1 Persons who had sought asylum at some point, excluding dependants.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  3 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme.

  4 Provisional figure.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom is published regularly in the annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library, and via the RDS website at http://WWW.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been issued to National Asylum Support Service caseworkers investigating incidents of racial harassment regarding police reports; if reports by third parties are considered; and if he will make a statement. [13043]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: Casework instructions have been issued to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) caseworkers investigating incidents of racial harassment. All incidents and alleged incidents of racial harassment are taken seriously and are investigated by the Performance Monitoring Investigations Section (PMI) within NASS. All incidents are investigated in the same way irrespective of whether they have been reported directly by the victim, their representative or a third party.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the administrative costs of the introduction of the voucher scheme for asylum seekers were. [12871]

  Angela Eagle
  Vouchers were introduced on 3 April 2000 when the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) assumed responsibility for providing support to destitute asylum seekers.

  Total staffing and related administrative costs of NASS for the period 3 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, including the costs of processing application forms, allocating accommodation and administering the voucher scheme were £15.6 million'. Vouchers are printed and distributed by third party providers under contract to the Home Office and payments made under the voucher contract are included in the administrative costs of NASS. Details of payments made under this contract are commercially confidential.

  1 Figure rounded to the nearest £0.1 million.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what status is given to unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the United Kingdom who are found not to qualify for(a) asylum and (b) exceptional leave to remain for humanitarian reasons but who cannot be removed from the United Kingdom. [13905]

  Angela Eagle
  It is our policy not to remove a failed asylum seeker from the United Kingdom if he or she is unaccompanied and under 18 years of age unless adequate reception arrangements can be made in the country of origin. Until now, if reception arrangements could not be made, four years' exceptional leave to remain has been granted.
  387W
  We have now decided that if a failed asylum seeker who has no other basis to remain in the United Kingdom is aged between 14 and 17 at the time a decision is made and adequate reception arrangements cannot be made, he or she will be granted a period of exceptional leave until his or her 18' birthday. He or she will be able to apply for further leave at the end of this period in the same way as anyone else, but will be expected to leave the United Kingdom if he or she does not so apply or any application is rejected.

  If a failed asylum seeker, for whom adequate reception arrangements cannot be made, is still aged under 14 at the time the asylum decision is made, he or she will continue to be granted four years' exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom in view of age and vulnerability. This will enable Local Authority social services departments to plan for the child's long term future. The child will then be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom in the same way as adults who have completed four years' exceptional leave. In this way, we are continuing to protect children while they are in need but closing a loophole which affords settlement in the United Kingdom to those who would not normally qualify.

  Immigration Advisers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) individuals and (b) organisations giving immigration advice for profit are registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner; and how many such individuals and organisations are in the process of registering with OISC. [13047]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: I understand that, as of 5 November 2001, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) had registered 130 immigration advisers in business for profit. Of these, 83 are sole practitioners and 47 are organisations comprising two or more practitioners. The OISC has under consideration 15 registration applications from sole practitioners and eight from organisations comprising two or more practitioners.

  Identity Cards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the value of(a) compulsory and (b) voluntary identity cards in combating terrorism in the United Kingdom. [13408]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have no plans to introduce a compulsory or voluntary identity card scheme as part of their response to the atrocities in the United States on 11 September.

  However the policy on identity cards 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 encouraging unscrupulous employers. It could also reduce fraud against individuals, public services and the private sector.
  388W
  The Government do not consider that an entitlement card scheme would have a significant effect in combating terrorism in the United Kingdom.

  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.

  Rape Crisis Centres
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding of rape crisis centres. [12332]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office started to fund the Rape Crisis Federation with effect from 1 April 2001 for its work in supporting the network of rape crisis centres throughout the country. This year's grant is £406,000.

  Police Fraud Teams
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the(a) size and (b) case load of police fraud teams in each year since 1996.

  [12648]

  Mr. Denham
  (a) I am afraid that this information is not kept centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, for the last two years Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has collected data from all forces in England and Wales according to a range of 62 staff functions, one of which is fraud. The staff function for fraud is defined as "staff who predominantly investigate fraud cases (not including staff who are predominantly employed in asset confiscation duties)" and "staff who are predominantly employed to support the investigation of fraud cases (not including staff who are predominantly employed to support asset confiscation duties)". The data are as follows:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Police force area

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  Avon and Somerset

  17

  1

  15

  2

  Bedfordshire

  8

  1

  13

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  0

  6

  0

  Cheshire

  16

  0

  15

  3

  City of London

  74

  12

  70

  11

  Cleveland

  10

  0

  10

  0

  Cumbria

  4

  0

  4

  0

  Derbyshire

  10

  1

  12

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  0

  18

  5

  Dorset

  13

  1

  14

  2

  Durham

  5

  0

  4

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  7

  0

  5

  1

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  8

  1

  8

  1

  Greater Manchester

  36

  0

  35

  0

  Gwent

  5

  0

  5

  0

  Hampshire

  11

  3

  12

  3

  Hertfordshire

  10

  0

  11

  0

  Humberside

  9

  1

  10

  1

  Kent

  14

  4

  13

  11

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicester

  0

  0

  7

  0

  Lincolnshire

  7

  0

  7

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Metropolitan police

  118

  0

  68

  2

  Norfolk

  7

  0

  7

  0

  North Wales

  9

  0

  0

  0

  389W

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Police force area

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  North Yorkshire

  6

  0

  6

  0

  Northamptonshire

  8

  2

  8

  4

  Northumbria

  14

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  1

  17

  1

  South Wales

  15

  2

  3

  0

  South Yorkshire

  21

  2

  20

  5

  Staffordshire

  10

  2

  10

  2

  Suffolk

  6

  0

  8

  2

  Surrey

  12

  0

  17

  3

  Sussex

  2

  1

  0

  2

  Thames Valley

  15

  4

  15

  5

  Warwickshire

  1

  0

  6

  1

  Fraud and forgery

  Police force area

  April 1996 to March 1997

  April 1997 to March 1998

  April 19981 to March 1999

  April 1999 to March 2000

  April 2000 to March 2001

  Avon and Somerset

  4,209

  3,655

  9,950

  8,518

  9,211

  Bedfordshire

  2,027

  1,742

  4,114

  4,760

  4,299

  Cambridgeshire

  1,491

  1,375

  2,389

  3,251

  2,780

  Cheshire

  2,325

  1,848

  2,146

  2,192

  2,390

  Cleveland

  1,350

  1,525

  2,261

  2,744

  2,880

  Cumbria

  946

  1,156

  1,388

  1,310

  1,094

  Derbyshire

  1,400

  1,271

  4,200

  4,739

  4,670

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,272

  2,255

  7,064

  6,925

  6,564

  Dorset

  1,315

  1,264

  6,334

  5,866

  5,045

  Durham

  1,193

  1,163

  1,311

  1,314

  1,394

  Essex

  2,526

  2,458

  4,366

  5,470

  6,615

  Gloucestershire

  1,551

  1,484

  2,527

  3,284

  3,105

  Greater Manchester

  5,411

  6,519

  15,830

  20,043

  18,579

  Hampshire

  3,998

  3,669

  5,130

  6,393

  5,847

  Hertfordshire

  1,225

  1,418

  2,312

  2,935

  3,982

  Humberside

  2,588

  2,381

  3,582

  3,745

  3,787

  Kent

  2,879

  3,034

  5,687

  7,387

  7,965

  Lancashire

  3,394

  3,557

  4,446

  4,024

  5,935

  Leicestershire

  3,417

  2,795

  7,227

  8,398

  6,925

  Lincolnshire

  1,344

  1,144

  2,723

  1,641

  1,662

  City of London

  384

  507

  862

  1,214

  1,145

  Merseyside

  3,999

  4,275

  4,884

  4,794

  5,021

  Metropolitan police

  41,157

  43,437

  80,541

  105,150

  83,453

  Norfolk

  1,222

  1,056

  2,488

  3,251

  2,742

  Northamptonshire

  1,211

  1,230

  4,425

  4,225

  3,661

  Northumbria

  2,017

  2,315

  4,991

  5,022

  5,365

  North Yorkshire

  989

  976

  2,563

  2,551

  2,498

  Nottinghamshire

  3,223

  2,869

  4,736

  6,195

  7,038

  South Yorkshire

  2,567

  2,262

  3,951

  4,794

  5,551

  Staffordshire

  2,106

  2,196

  3,830

  4,885

  6,083

  Suffolk

  1,302

  1,069

  2,099

  2,182

  2,372

  Surrey

  1,315

  1,456

  2,994

  3,808

  5,133

  Sussex

  2,677

  3,059

  7,790

  8,615

  9,886

  Thames Valley

  4,467

  4,016

  11,778

  14,191

  16,085

  Warwickshire

  932

  910

  2,401

  2,383

  2,067

  West Mercia

  1,960

  1,865

  3,961

  4,210

  3,898

  West Midlands

  5,781

  4,987

  15,675

  26,856

  29,322

  West Yorkshire

  5,034

  5,458

  10,608

  11,533

  10,626

  Wiltshire

  914

  824

  1,933

  2,086

  2,200

  Dyfed-Powys

  621

  448

  1,402

  1,136

  1,226

  Gwent

  1,415

  1,402

  2,395

  2,586

  2,532

  North Wales

  956

  841

  1,869

  1,570

  1,777

  South Wales

  2,865

  3,061

  6,340

  6,597

  4,914

  England and Wales total

  135,975

  136,232

  279,503

  334,773

  319,324

  1 New Home Office counting rules were issued for recorded crime on 1 April 1998

  Police Authority Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to police authorities on the purchase and hire of road vehicles. [12911]
  390W

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Police force area

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  West Mercia

  7

  0

  5

  0

  West Midlands

  28

  12

  29

  9

  West Yorkshire

  42

  0

  43

  0

  Wiltshire

  3

  0

  4

  0

  England and Wales

  616

  55

  560

  84

  (b) I am afraid that this information is not kept centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the recorded crime figures for fraud and forgery for all police forces in England and Wales between April 1996 and March 2001 are as follows:

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 July 2001, Official Report, column 648W.
  391W
  In 1996 the Police Information Technology Organisation placed a leasing Framework for police vehicles with two suppliers. These arrangements are due to run until July 2002.

  Forensic Laboratories
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time it took each of the national forensic laboratories to complete an investigation, from referral to conclusion in the last 12 months. [12040]

  Angela Eagle
  Figures available to the Home Office only include the work of the Forensic Science Service in England and Wales. Response times vary dependent on the offence type. There can be more than one referral in an investigation. The average turn around time for individual referrals was 26 days for the 12-month period from April 2000 to March 2001. In the year to date since March 2001 the average turn round time was 28 days.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many forensic scientists were employed by the national forensic laboratories in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [12039]

  Angela Eagle
  The average number of forensic scientists employed by the Home Office Forensic Science Service in each of the last five years is:

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  814

  1997–98

  855

  1998–99

  1,027

  1999–2000

  1,221

  2000–01

  1,603

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [10833]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Within its total estate the Home Office possesses the following recorded stocks of antiques, paintings and fine wines:

  Antiques

  5 (no.) Pair of chandeliers

  5 (no.) Chandeliers

  1 (no.) Wall lantern

  1 (no.) Hanging lantern

  1 (no.) Pair of hanging lanterns

  4 (no.) Wall brackets

  1 (no.) Card table

  2 (no.) Sofa tables

  2 (no.) Console tables

  392W

  2 (no.) Tea tables

  1 (no.) Coffee table

  1 (no.) Cricket table

  5 (no.) Side tables

  1 (no.) Refectory table

  1 (no.) Pair of refectory tables

  1 (no.) Dining table

  3 (no.) Billiards tables

  1 (no.) Loo table

  1 (no.) Armchair

  A set of 10 (no.) Side Chairs

  1 (no.) Chaise Longue

  A set of 12 (no.) Elbow chairs

  1 (no.) Pair of Elbow chairs

  A set of 6 (no.) Dining Chairs

  1 (no.) Long stool

  A set of 4 (no.) Benches

  A set of 9 (no.) Dining Chairs

  1 (no.) Joynt stool

  1 (no.) pair of standard chairs

  1 (no.) Settle

  3 (no.) Display cabinets

  3 (no.) Dressers

  3 (no.) Coffers

  A set of 4 (no.) Applique

  A set of 9 (no.) Applique

  1 (no.) Copper cistern

  A collection of copper and brass pans and bowls

  1 (no.) Wall mirror

  5 (no.) Pair of antlers on shields

  1 (no.) Stag's head on shield

  1 (no.) Navel officer's sword and scabbard

  1 (no.) Console

  1 (no.) Pianoforte

  A set of 7 (no.) Candelabrum

  1 (no.) Secretaire bookcase

  2 (no.) bookcases

  1 (no.) Bracket clock

  1 (no.) Standish

  2 (no.) Sliver chalices

  2 (no.) Statues

  9 (no.) Pairs of fire dogs

  8 (no.) Fire baskets

  2 (no.) Fire backs

  2 (no.) Persian carpets

  1 (no.) Caucasian rug

  1 (no.) Turkish carpet

  1 (no.) Carpet

  2 (no.) Tapestries

  3 (no.) Drawings

  1 (no.) Coloured print

  4 (no.) Engravings

  Paintings

  12 (no.) Paintings

  Fine Wines

  Nil.

  393W
  No antiques, paintings or fine wines have been sold during the past three years and there are no plans to sell any.

  None of these items are held centrally by the Home Office, but by those involved in training and service delivery. Some of these items are gifts provided by those visiting or taking part in seminars and conferences from overseas.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the working and implementation of antisocial behaviour orders; and if he will make a statement. [9478]

  Mr. Denham
  During the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 a commitment was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), the then Home Office Minister, to review antisocial behaviour orders after two years. The review is currently under way.

  Fly Tipping
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were convicted of fly tipping in England in each year since 1997. [12409]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The available information, taken from the Home Office court proceedings database, showing the number of persons convicted of 'fly-tipping' offences in England during the period 1997 to 2000 is given in the table.

  Number of persons convicted of the given environmental offence at all courts, England 1997 to 2000

  Offence description/principal statute

  Number of persons convicted

  Prohibition on unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal etc. of waste—Environmental Protection Act 1990 sec.

  33

  1997

  113

  1998

  157

  1999

  183

  20001

  199

  1 Excluding any convictions at magistrates courts in Staffordshire

  Note:

  All data are given on a principal offence basis

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will receive a determination on applications M 1103515 and M 1103516 from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [12663]

  Angela Eagle
  The applicants' representative was requested on 19 October to provide additional evidence to enable us to give further consideration to these cases. A decision will be made as soon as possible after this has been received.

  Special Constables
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reviewed the 1997 Her Majesty's inspectorate of contabulary conclusion that special constables should not be paid; and if he will make a statement. [7092]
  394W
  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office funded two recent research studies which have made recommendations on the recruitment and retention of special constables1.

  Voluntary service to the community is a key element of the special constabulary but we are reviewing the allowances paid to special constables and a number of other options for achieving radical improvements in the conditions of service and the management of special constables.

  1 "An Investigation into the Premature Wastage of Special Constables" by Jackie Alexander. Home Office Police Research Unit, May 2000 (www.pras.org); and

  "Attracting and Keeping Special Constables" by Alan Hedges. July 2000 (circulated to all police forces July 2000).

  Race Relations Act
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make changes to the authorisation under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 concerning discrimination of the basis of ethnic or national origin in the examination of passengers. [13906]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker has been reviewing the authorisation made on 23 April by his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Homsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche)—the Race Relations (Immigration and Asylum) (No. 2) Authorisation 2001—each month on the basis of statistical evidence and intelligence material produced by the Immigration Service. The authorisation permitted the Immigration Service to pay particular attention to arriving passengers from certain specified ethnic or national groups, namely Afghans, Albanians, Kurds, Pontic Greeks, Roma, Somalis, Tamils and persons of Chinese ethnic origin carrying Japanese or Malaysian travel documents.

  My right hon. and noble Friend has amended the authorisation to remove Pontic Greeks from the list of specified groups, on the grounds that while intelligence suggests that members of this group may pose a threat to the United Kingdom's immigration control in future, there is not sufficient evidence at present to maintain their current inclusion in the authorisation. The remaining groups covered by the authorisation remain unchanged.

  A copy of the authorisation has been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she had with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), prior to Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland held on 6 November, regarding the content and wording of his supplementary oral question to her. [13541]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with back-bench colleagues.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Barrett
  To ask the Advocate-General what discussions she had with the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), prior to Questions to the Advocate-General for Scotland on 6 November, regarding the content and wording of their supplementary oral questions to her. [13540]

  The Advocate-General
  I am always personally available to all hon. Members for discussion of any matter of interest to hon. Members, within my responsibilities as Advocate-General.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the extended magistrates' sitting hours pilots in Manchester and London are expected to commence; what funding has been identified to facilitate these; and if he will make a statement. [12003]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government plan to pilot studies to find the most cost-effective means of extending court hours. The aim is to test whether extended hours would have an impact on delays, deter local criminals, improve access to justice and help reassure local communities. Planning is under way involving all criminal justice partners in London and Manchester. The pilots are expected to start next year. Funding of £5.4 million has been identified to facilitate these.

  Judiciary
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the figures for women and men barristers who were judicial appointees at each level of the courts in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001 reflect the proportion of women and men called to the Bar between 10 and 15 years earlier. [12853]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The relevant data are not readily available in the form requested and I will write to my hon. Friend. Statistics from the Judicial Appointments Annual Report for 2000–01 show the overall average years in practice at the time of appointment for the main competitions held was 21.0 years for both banisters and solicitors. Figures from the Bar Council show that 10.8 per cent. of barristers with over 20 years' experience were women. Figures in the Annual Report show that the proportion of women, both barristers and solicitors, appointed in open competitions in 2000–01 was 28.4 per cent.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and (b) women appointees to the judiciary in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001 were Queen's counsel at the time of their appointment. [12865]
  396W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total number of QCs appointed to the judiciary in open competitions in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was 36, 35 and 53 respectively.

  Information on the gender breakdown is not readily to hand but I will write to my hon. Friend with the information.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and (b) women appointees to the judiciary in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001 were solicitors at the time of their appointment. [12849]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total number of solicitors appointed to the judiciary in open competitions in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was 294, 211 and 277 respectively. Information on the gender breakdown is not readily to hand but I will write to my hon. Friend with the information.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average ages were of(a) women and (b) men appointees to the full-time Crown court judiciary in the last 12 months. [12864]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information in the form requested is not readily available. Circuit judges are not generally appointed to sit exclusively in the Crown court. Many sit also in civil and family work and the balance of time spent sitting in the Crown court will vary between appointees and from one year to the next. The average age of candidates approved for appointment for the Circuit Bench in 2000–01 was 51.4 years. I will write to my hon. Friend with further information about appointments made to the Circuit Bench over the course of the last year showing the average age by female and male appointees.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and (b) women appointees to the judiciary in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001 were single parents at the time of their appointment. [12851]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about marital status and children is not specifically sought from candidates and therefore no records are held. Members of the legal profession, irrespective of their background or personal circumstances are encouraged to apply for judicial office. Candidates are appointed on merit against the published criteria for appointment.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) women and (b) men appointed to the judiciary in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000 had previously taken an employment break in order to care for children. [12850]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about employment breaks to care for children is not specifically sought from applicants for judicial office; therefore there are no records available.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to put in place creche facilities associated with the courts with the aim of encouraging younger women with children to apply for appointment to the judiciary; and what other plans she has to offer such encouragement. [12852]
  397W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor is not aware of a specific demand for such creche facilities. The Lord Chancellor gives general encouragement to women to apply for judicial office. With this in mind, among the initiatives he has introduced are a permanent part-time working facility and flexible part-time sitting arrangements for those who have had career breaks for family reasons. In addition the lower age limits for judicial office are applied flexibly.

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what proportion of applications for leave to apply for judicial review were(a) heard in court and (b) upheld in the last year for which data are available; and if he will make a statement. [12672]

  Mr. Wills
  The following information is based on judicial review cases, both civil and criminal, received between 1 October 2000 and 30 September 2001.

  Number of applications received—4,554

  Number of substantive applications heard—1,176 (as percentage of applications received)—25.8 per cent.

  Number of substantive applications allowed—607 (as percentage of applications received—13.3 per cent.

  Hereford Crown Court
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to renew the lease on Hereford Crown court; and if he will make a statement. [13194]

  Mr. Wills
  The Court Service has instructed managing agents acting on its behalf to renew both of the two current leases that we hold on accommodation at the Shire Hall, Hereford which expire on 31 December 2001. These negotiations are now proceeding.

TREASURY

  Government Debt
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of servicing Government debt in each of the last five years. [11331]

  Ruth Kelly
  As a result of the action this Government have taken to deliver economic stability, such as cutting borrowing, and making the Bank of England independent, Budget 2001 forecast gross debt interest for 2001–02 to be £23.1 billion, £3.0 billion lower than in 2000–01.

  The forecast for gross debt interest in 2001–02 is £4.5 billion lower than the cost of debt interest in 1996–97 and £6.2 billion lower than in 1997–98.

  Under the last Government, this was money spent on paying the price of economic failure. Under this Government, money saved on debt interest can now be used to invest in Britain's key public service.

  Contingency Fund
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for further allocations to spending Departments from the contingency fund during the remainder of this financial year. [11343]
  398W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Contingencies Fund is used to advance urgent resources to departments pending approval of the spending through estimates in the normal manner. There are therefore no plans to make allocations from it, as it is not a budgeting concept. Allocations may be made from the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve to meet genuinely unforeseen contingencies. Any such resources additional to departmental budgets will be reported to Parliament through the Supplementary Estimates procedure in the normal way.

  Terrorist Funds
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is putting in place to tackle the financing of international terrorism. [11344]

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the measures taken to cut off the supply of funding to terrorism. [11351]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friends to the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8 November 2001,Official Report, columns 397-52.

  Third-world Debt
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the UK in pressing for reductions in third-world debt. [11345]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK has consistently been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief for the developing countries. The UK pushed for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative to be speeded up, and as a result, 23 countries are now receiving debt relief. These countries will receive $54 billion in debt relief, which will reduce their debts to below the developing country average. The UK's 100 per cent. bilateral policy on debt relief means that it stands ready to write off £1.9 billion of debts for all 42 HIPCs. The Chancellor also announced last December that the UK would hold in trust any payments from those HIPCs yet to receive debt relief. We call on other G7 countries to follow our lead.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of student loans. [11347]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced in October that she is leading a review of student funding. This will examine the appropriate balance between the contribution made by students, their families and the state to support our ambitions to widen access and participation in higher education.

  Banking Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing the findings of the Cruickshank report on UK banking. [11348]

  Ruth Kelly
  There have been three recent developments.
  399W
  First, the Julius Review Group published in July its report reviewing the banking codes. The Government are now considering the response of the industry to the report's recommendations.

  Second, the Government published their response to consultation on competition in payment systems in August. The Government will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Third, the Competition Commission reported to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in October with the findings of its inquiry into the provision of banking services to small and medium sized enterprises. The Government are considering these findings.

  Tax and Benefit Integration
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has to integrate the tax and benefit systems. [11350]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to further integration of the tax and benefit system to tackle poverty and to promote incentives to work and save.

  Over the last Parliament a number of reforms were introduced, including the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, the Children's Tax Credit and the Minimum Income Guarantee for Pensioners.

  In the next stage of reform, the Government intend to introduce a new system of tax credits from 2003 which will help to support families, make work pay and tackle child poverty.

  The Pension Credit, also introduced from 2003, will help reward saving, support pensioners on low to modest incomes and tackle pensioner poverty.

  NHS Investment
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from health professionals in the NHS on public investment in health services. [11352]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am always interested in the views of health service professionals and receive regular representations on a range of public service issues.

  Discount Rate
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Treasury discount rate is set at 6 per cent. in real terms. [11353]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The discount rate is based on several factors, including the cost of public sector capital and the estimated rate of social time preference. The 6 per cent. rate currently recommended was set in 1989 and was derived from the evidence then available. A review is currently under way of the project appraisal and capital appraisal system to ensure it embodies best practice in present circumstances.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent analysis his Department has undertaken of the influence on the relative values of public sector comparators and public-private partnership costs of changing the discount rate. [11359]
  400W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The project appraisal and capital approval system used in government is currently under review. However, the rationale for any change in the discount rate would have implications for other parts of the appraisal process, so the overall effect would depend on a combination of these factors.

  September 11
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to minimise the impact of the terrorist attacks on 11 September and the bombing of Afghanistan on the British economy and business confidence; and if he will make a statement. [11354]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will publish forecasts for the UK economy and the public finances in the forthcoming pre-Budget report, taking into account all developments and influences on prospects.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revisions he has made to his estimates for economic growth and tax revenues in 2001–02 and 2002–03 following the events of 11 September. [11361]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest forecasts for the UK and world economies and the public finances were published in "Budget 2001" (HC279). Updated forecasts will be presented as part of the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

  Productivity
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the competitiveness of the UK economy in terms of productivity. [11355]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government make regular assessments of UK competitiveness and productivity and are committed to increasing UK productivity at a faster rate than that of their major competitors. Budget 2001 gave the most recent assessment of UK productivity, and Government policy in this area was set out in "Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity Challenge", published in June this year. The forthcoming pre-Budget report will provide a further update on UK productivity relative to our main competitors.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from interested organisations regarding public-private partnerships. [11357]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers receive representations from various organisations and individuals on a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the viability of future public-private partnership schemes. [11360]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's approach to public-private partnerships was set out in the Treasury document, "Public-private partnerships: the Government's approach", published in March 2000.

  Public Services
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on what recent measures he has taken to promote the improvement of public services. [11362]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's prudent stewardship of public finances since 1997 has made it possible to provide unprecedented levels of investment for key public services. £43 billion of additional funding has been allocated to Departmental Expenditure Limits by 2003–04. Three quarters of these increased funds will be spent in the Government's priority areas of health, education, transport, housing and law and order. This investment in public services is tied to commitments by Departments to deliver improved service standards and key reforms, the targets for which are set out in their public service agreements.

  Housing Market
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the level of interest rates on the housing market. [11363]

  Ruth Kelly
  In August this year mortgage rates averaged 6.0 per cent. This compares with an average of over 11 per cent. during the period 1979–97. As a result, mortgage interest payments on the average mortgage are now over £1,500 a year lower than if interest rates were still at the levels seen from 1979–97.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent research he has commissioned on the impact of his policies on the economic plans of the Regional Development Agencies. [11365]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Regional Development Agencies are key to meeting economic development challenges faced at the regional level. To support their objectives, the RDAs need a stable national macroeconomic environment in which to operate, which we have provided through the national framework of macroeconomic reforms and policies we have implemented since 1997. Within that framework, we have also given RDAs the flexibility and autonomy they need to address regional priorities and deliver economic growth within and between every region.

  To understand more fully the regional impact of national policies, and to ensure that the economic plans of the RDAs can best work within them, the Treasury is supporting through the Evidence-Based Policy Fund a research project, led by DTLR, to identify public expenditure flows into the regions. This project is due to be completed early in 2002.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to hold a referendum on joining the single European currency. [11346]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor in October 1997 and restated by the Prime Minster in 402W
  February 1999. The Government have said they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. Once the assessment has been completed, the Government will make a decision on UK membership of the single currency. If the Government recommend UK entry, it will be put to a vote in Parliament and then to a referendum of the British people.

  Census Returns
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of forms from the(a) 2001 and (b) 1991 Census were returned. [11678]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated October 2001:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the percentage of forms returned from (a) the 2001 and (b) the 1991 Census. [11678].
  The Office for National Statistics presently estimates that the response rate to the 2001 Census in England and Wales will reach 98 per cent. of households. Around 88 per cent. of the estimated number of households returned forms by post, a further seven per cent. were collected by enumerators and possibly three per cent. were vacant dwellings and second homes. We will not know the precise response rates until all the forms have been processed and analysed.
  In the 1991 Census in England and Wales, nearly 98 per cent. of forms for households identified by enumerators as being occupied, were returned.

  Charities
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent measures he has put in place to help charities. [11583]

  Mr. Boateng
  In April 2000 the Government introduced a number of measures to help charities and to encourage greater charitable giving. The Getting Britain Giving package of measures included improvements to the Gift Aid and Payroll Giving schemes and a new income tax relief for giving shares to charities. The Government are supporting The Giving Campaign, led by the charitable sector, to promote the new reliefs and encourage a culture of giving.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding interest rates; and if he will make a statement. [11356]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor and the Governor meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. The level of interest rates is a matter for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

  VAT Fraud
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation he has made of HM Customs and Excise's strategy to tackle trader-based intra-EU VAT fraud. [9185]
  403W
  Mr. Boateng
  Full details of Customs' strategy to tackle missing trader-based intra-EU VAT fraud will be published at the time of the Pre-Budget report.

  Individual Pension Accounts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 71W, on individual pension accounts, how many individual pension accounts have been taken out to date. [13294]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not collected by the Government.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on HM Customs and Excise proposals to employ staff in mobile anti-smuggling squads; and what assessment he has made of the impact this proposal will have on the port of Poole. [12546]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: HM Customs and Excise keeps under constant review its resource deployment in the light of risk analysis and results. It has for some time used flexible mobile teams to tackle smuggling around the coast and at ports and airports. Deployment changes are intelligence-led and so designed to achieve the greatest possible impact on smuggling.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were(a) employed in Customs and Excise investigation and fraud teams and (b) engaged in counter-smuggling activities in each year since 1996; and what his estimate is for 2001 and plans for 2002. [12653]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: For the financial years 1996–97 to 1999–2000 the number of Customs' staff employed in Investigation and Anti-smuggling teams were as follows:

  Investigation1

  Anti-smuggling

  1996–97

  1,679

  2,829

  1997–98

  1,783

  2,854

  1998–99

  1,864

  2,872

  1999–2000

  1,907

  2,877

  1 This includes non-core activity (corporate and support services)

  For 2000–01 and 2001–02 Customs were complemented for 3,315 and 3,445 detection staff and 1,864 and 2,101 investigation staff respectively. From 2000–01 the figures for Investigation no longer include the non-core support services activity.

  Year/number/location

  Status

  Value (£)

  1996–97

  Number of acquisitions made: 0

  —

  —

  1997–98

  Number of acquisitions made: 2

  England

  Basingstoke

  Core department. Established body

  355

  Birmingham

  Executive agency. Established body

  3

  1998–99

  Number of acquisitions made: 0

  —

  —

  Broadband Tax Incentives
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the introduction of regional tax incentives for broadband communications in the Objective 1 areas. [12395]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government keep all areas of the tax system under review. The 100 per cent. capital allowances for information and communications technology expenditure by small firms, announced in Budget 2000, include capital expenditure on broadband. These are available in Objective 1 areas as in the rest of the UK.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason guidance to officials in his Department on drafting replies to parliamentary questions requires them to offer commentary on the motivation of the hon. Member asking the question; and if he will make a statement. [10971]

  Mr. Leslie
  Civil servants are required to draft answers to parliamentary questions in accordance with the requirements of the "Guidance to Officials on Drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions". A copy of the Guidance is in the Library of the House. In addition, more detailed internal guidance is issued to officials in my Department advising them of Minsters' requirements on layout and style. Officials are asked to set out the background to the parliamentary question and, if known, the reason why the question has been asked. Similar guidance has been issued under successive Administrations. Such information can help to ensure that answers provided to hon. Members are relevant to their concerns.

  Cabinet Office Properties
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by the Cabinet Office, including and distinguishing between 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. [7809]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information requested, covering 1996–97 to 2001–01 (inclusive) is as follows:
  405W

  Year/number/location

  Status

  Value (£)

  1999–2000

  Number of acquisitions made: 5

  England

  London x 2

  Core department. Established body

  1,648

  Manchester

  NDPB. Established body

  341

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  Executive agency. Established body

  18

  Glasgow

  NDPB. Established body

  54

  2000–01

  Number of acquisitions made: 2

  England

  London

  Core department. Established body x 1.

  2,527

  New body x 1

  Notes:

  Unless otherwise stated, the figures shown in the 'value' column comprise rent, service charges and all other accommodation related running costs incurred in 2000–01.

  Figures exclude VAT.

  Figures in respect of the Government Offices for the Regions and the Regional Co-ordination Unit have been excluded, as these have been included in the Answer already provided by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Failing LEAs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list, for each local education authority found to be failing by Ofsted,(a) the date of inspection, of report, and of receipt of action plan by her Department, (b) the date of second inspection, of report, and of receipt of action plan by her Department, (c) the date of subsequent milestone events such as decisions to involve private partners in the management of local education authority services, to award, implement or terminate contracts with private partners, and to assist in or restructure the local education authority and (d) the names of partners to whom contracts have been awarded. [9909]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: There have been 21 authorities in which the Secretary of State has intervened following a critical Ofsted report. The information requested is contained in tables, which have been placed in the Library.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the average funding per pupil provided to(a) primary schools in Cheshire, (b) secondary schools in Cheshire, (c) primary schools in Hertfordshire, (d) secondary schools in Hertfordshire, (e) primary schools in England and (f) secondary schools in England in the last financial year. [11079]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Primary

  Secondary

  Cheshire

  1,903

  2,532

  Hertfordshire

  1,926

  2,639

  England

  2,010

  2,663

  The figures do not include School Standards Grant.

  GCSE Results
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the 100 secondary schools with the worst GCSE examination results in England in order of their performance indicating in each case the responsible local education authority; and if she will make a statement. [11483]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The Department will publish 2001 GCSE (and GNVQ equivalent) results for schools in England in the secondary school performance tables on 22 November.

  The White Paper "Schools Achieving Success" describes the programme of challenge and support designed to ensure that in all schools at least 25 per cent. of pupils should achieve 5 A*-C grades at GCSE (or equivalent) by 2006. Many of the schools currently below this target are working in deprived areas and adding considerable value given the prior attainment of their intake. We are working with schools and LEAs to identify what support is needed to deliver equality of outcome for their pupils.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the local education authorities which are(a) partly and (b) wholly run by private sector entities; which they are; and if she will make a statement. [11487]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: There are 10 interventions that involve private sector companies delivering services or functions under contract. The LEAs still remain responsible and accountable for the services in question.

  Intervention authorities where private sector involved in the delivery of services

  Bradford

  Hackney

  Haringey

  Islington

  407W

  Leeds

  Sandwell

  Southwark

  Thurrock

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest.

  State Schools (Private Firms)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which state schools in England have had their management taken over by private firms. [11535]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: None. The legal responsibility for managing a school rests with the governing body and head teacher, even where they are supported by expertise from the private sector.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children, on average, were receiving free school meals in(a) specialist schools and (b) other secondary schools in the state sector, on 30 September. [11539]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Free school meals data are not available for September.

  The percentages of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in specialist secondary schools and other maintained secondary schools as at January 2001 are 14.7 per cent. and 16.2 per cent. respectively, and in those specialist secondary schools designated between January and October 2001 is 15.9 per cent.

  Independent School Fees
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received on her policy relating to the provision of support towards the cost of independent school fees by her Department. [12005]

  1996–97

  Age at end of financial year

  Age retirement

  Ill-health retirement

  Premature retirement

  All retirements

  Left for reasons other than retirement

  Less than 25

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  400

  25 to 29

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  3,600

  30 to 34

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  3,300

  35 to 39

  0

  100

  0

  100

  2,600

  40 to 44

  0

  400

  0

  400

  3,200

  45 to 49

  0

  1,200

  0

  1,200

  3,200

  50 to 54

  0

  1,800

  4,500

  6,300

  1,700

  55 to 59

  1 —

  1,100

  4,500

  5,600

  700

  60 and over

  1,700

  100

  1,300

  3,200

  200

  Total

  1,700

  4,800

  10,300

  16,800

  18,900

  1 less than 50

  Age at end of financial year

  Age retirement

  Ill-health retirement

  Premature retirement

  All retirements

  Left for reasons other than retirement

  Less than 25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  500

  25 to 29

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  4,100

  30 to 34

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  3,900

  35 to 39

  0

  100

  0

  100

  2,900

  40 to 44

  0

  300

  0

  300

  3,700

  408W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 November 200I]: Earlier this year I received representations from the Independent Schools Council and others on proposals for more open access to independent schools. Their proposals sought Government assistance to subsidise the cost of school fees that could not be met by children's parents. However, the Government have a manifesto commitment from 1997 to phase out the Assisted Places Scheme (APS) and to use the available resources to raise standards and enhance opportunities for children in maintained schools. Savings from phasing out the APS are going towards the significant reduction in infant class sizes, as demonstrated in the achievements of the past four years. Any new scheme that would assist relatively few children to attend independent schools would be incompatible with the long-standing commitment to phase out APS.

  Teachers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 26 October 2001,Official Report, columns 469–70W, on teacher recruitment, what was the allocation of the recruitment and retention fund, 2000–01 to each local education authority. [12155]

  Mr. Timms
  A press notice (PN 2001/0191) announcing the details of the fund and the allocations to local education authorities was issued on 2 April 2001. A copy can be found on the departmental website www.dfes.gov.uk.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her written answer of 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 461W, on teachers, if she will list the (a) age profile and (b) reasons for leaving of the teachers leaving service in the maintained schools in each of the last four academic years. [12172]

  Mr. Timms
  Qualified full and part-time regular teachers (headcount) who left service in the maintained schools sector in England are as follows:
  409W

  1997–98

  Age at end of financial year

  Age retirement

  Ill-health retirement

  Prematur retirement

  All retirements

  Left for reasons other than retirement

  45 to 49

  0

  800

  1 —

  800

  4,200

  50 to 54

  0

  1,300

  5,600

  6,900

  2,300

  55 to 59

  0

  800

  4,500

  5,200

  800

  60 and over

  1,900

  100

  1,100

  3,100

  300

  Total

  1,900

  3,400

  11,200

  16,600

  22,600

  1 less than 50

  1998–99

  Age at end of financial year

  Age retirement

  Ill-health retirement

  Premature retirement

  All retirements

  Left for reasons other than retirement

  Less than 25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  500

  25 to 29

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  4,600

  30 to 34

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  4,000

  35 to 39

  0

  1

  0

  1 —

  2,900

  40 to 44

  0

  200

  0

  200

  3,300

  45 to 49

  0

  600

  0

  600

  4,100

  50 to 54

  0

  1,000

  1,300

  2,200

  2,800

  55 to 59

  0

  500

  1,700

  2,100

  1,100

  60 and over

  1,900

  100

  800

  2,900

  300

  Total

  1,900

  2,300

  3,800

  8,000

  23,700

  1 less than 50

  1999–2000

  Age at end of financial year

  Age retirement

  Ill-health retirement

  Premature retirement

  All retirements

  Left for reasons other than retirement

  Less than 25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  500

  25 to 29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4,700

  30 to 34

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  4,300

  35 to 39

  0

  1 —

  0

  1 —

  3,400

  40 to 44

  0

  100

  0

  100

  3,500

  45 to 49

  0

  500

  1 —

  500

  4,500

  50 to 54

  0

  1,000

  1,300

  2,200

  3,600

  55 to 59

  0

  600

  2,000

  2,600

  1,400

  60 and over

  2,300

  100

  900

  3,300

  300

  Total

  2,300

  2,300

  4,300

  8,800

  26,200

  1 less than 50

  The totals may not be the sum of the component parts due to rounding.

  The most recent data available are for March 2000.

  The figures exclude 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, of part-time teachers not included on the Teacher Pension Scheme records.

  The reasons for leaving cannot be broken down accurately into any additional categories.

  Some teachers who left service will return subsequently.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students there are in the(a) further education and (b) higher education sector. [12263]

  John Healey
  There were 4.2 million students in the FE sector in 1999–2000. This figure includes funded and non-funded students in FE colleges and funded students 410W
  in external institutions, specialist designated institutions and higher education institutions. Data for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Numbers for students in higher education are as follows:

  HE students in England—2000–011

  Thousand

  Postgraduates

  Undergraduates

  Total

  Full-time

  136.1

  874.5

  1,010.6

  Part-time

  179.4

  461.6

  641.0

  Total

  315.5

  1,336.1

  1,651.6

  1 Provisional

  Note:

  The figures cover HE students in HE and FE institutions, including
  the Open University.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many higher education students are in their(a) first, (b) second, (c) third and (d) fourth of study. [12264]
  411W
  Margaret Hodge
  The information is given in the following table.

  Higher Education Students in the UK1 —2000–01

  Year of study

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1

  503.9

  285.5

  789.4

  2

  324.6

  141.8

  466.3

  3

  253.2

  67.2

  320.3

  4

  91.5

  40.2

  131.7

  Other

  22.9

  71.8

  94.7

  Total

  1,196.0

  606.5

  1,802.5

  1 Covers all home and overseas postgraduates and undergraduates in HE institutions in the UK.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching staff have been employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in higher education in each of the last five years. [12306]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available data on the number of teaching staff employed in higher education are given in the table.

  Academic Staff in UK Higher Education Institutions

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1995–96

  111,460

  15,120

  126,580

  1996–97

  110,770

  16,790

  127,570

  1997–98

  110.480

  17,590

  128,080

  1998–99

  112,370

  18,760

  131,140

  1999–2000

  113,790

  21,960

  135,750

  Note:

  Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency's Staff Record

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unfilled vacancies there were in the higher education sector for all grades of lecturer posts in(a) 1995 and (b) 2000. [12308]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not held centrally. Individual universities, as employers, are responsible for monitoring their own vacancies.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what monitoring is carried out by her Department of the payment by higher education institutions of nationally recommended pay awards. [12309]

  Margaret Hodge
  The higher education employers and trades unions will monitor the implementation of the pay awards they have agreed. The Government do not play a part.

  Universities
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) male and (b) female university teachers are aged (i) 20 to 25, (ii) 25 to 30, (iii) 31 to 35, (iv) 36 to 40, (v) 41 to 44, (vi) 45 to 49, (vii) 50 to 54, (viii) 55 to 59, (ix) 60 to 65, (x) 66 to 70 and (xi) 71 years and over. [12307]
  412W
  Margaret Hodge
  The available data on age and gender of university staff are given in the table.

  Academic staff in UK higher education institutions 1999–2000

  Age

  Female

  Male

  Total

  20–24

  1,620

  1,520

  3,140

  25–30

  9,100

  12,110

  21,210

  31–35

  8,720

  13,710

  22,430

  36–40

  7,590

  12,120

  19,710

  41–44

  5,760

  8,780

  14,540

  45–49

  6,660

  11,170

  17,830

  50–54

  5,480

  13,000

  18,480

  55–59

  2,590

  8,690

  11,550

  60–65

  870

  5,190

  6,060

  66–70

  50

  390

  440

  71+

  140

  220

  360

  Total

  48,580

  87,170

  135,750

  Note:

  Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency's Staff Record.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the(a) recruitment and retention of university staff and (b) total funding figures for universities in England and Wales per university for the last five years. [12321]

  Margaret Hodge
  The recruitment and retention of staff is a matter for higher education institutions. However, in England the Government are providing £50 million in 2001–02, rising to £110 million in 2002–03 and £170 million in 2003–04. This is to support the initiatives set out in the human resources strategies which each higher education institution has submitted to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, including measures to promote recruitment and retention and modernisation of reward systems. In Wales, these issues are now a matter for the National Assembly.

  Data on funding for higher education institutes can be found in the Higher Education Statistics Agency publication "Resources for higher education institutions" copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Teacher Shortages
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the forthcoming allocation of funds to local education authorities for 2002–03 will be adjusted to reflect cost of living issues and teacher shortages in the south-east. [12743]

  Mr. Timms
  Education standard spending assessments for 2002–03 will continue to reflect the additional costs faced by local education authorities on the same basis as in 2001–02.

  Specialist Schools
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools there were in each local education authority in(a) 1996, (b) 1998 and (c) 2000; and how many there were in each specialty in 2000. [12966]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of operational Specialist Schools, as of 1996,1998 and 2000, by LEA by specialism, is given in the following tables.
  413W

  Specialist Schools

  Number of operational Specialist Schools by LEA by specialism (information given is as of September each year)

  Total secondary schools in LEA

  1996

  Local education authorities

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Barking & Dagenham, LB of

  8

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Barnet, LB of

  21

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Barnsley

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bath & North East Somerset

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bedfordshire

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bexley, LB of

  16

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  77

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Blackburn with Darwen

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Blackpool

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bolton

  16

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Bournemouth

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bracknell Forest

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bradford

  27

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Brent, LB of

  13

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Brighton and Hove

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bristol, city of

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bromley, LB of

  17

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  34

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Bury

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Calderdale

  15

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  30

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Camden, LB of

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Cheshire

  45

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Corporation of London

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Cornwall

  31

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Coventry

  19

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Croydon, LB of

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Cumbria

  42

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Darlington

  7

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Derby, city of

  13

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Derbyshire

  47

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Devon

  37

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Doncaster

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Dorset

  20

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Dudley

  22

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Durham

  36

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Ealing, LB of

  13

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  East Sussex

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Enfield, LB of

  17

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Essex

  79

  —

  1

  —

  8

  9

  Gateshead

  10

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  42

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Greenwich, LB of

  13

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Hackney, LB of

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Halton

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hammersmith & Fulham, LB of

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hampshire

  71

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Haringey, LB of

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Harrow, LB of

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hartlepool

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Havering, LB of

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Herefordshire

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hertfordshire

  77

  —

  3

  —

  1

  4

  Hillingdon, LB of

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hounslow, LB of

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Isle of Scilly

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Isle of Wight

  5

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Islington, LB of

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kensington & Chelsea, RB of

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kent

  102

  —

  1

  —

  5

  6

  Kingston upon Hull, city of

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames, RB of

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kirklees

  25

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Knowsley

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Lambeth, LB of

  10

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  87

  —

  2

  —

  9

  11

  Leeds

  43

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Leicester City

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Leicestershire

  45

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Lewisham, LB of

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  414W 415W

  Specialist Schools

  Number of operational Specialist Schools by LEA by specialism (information given is as of September each year)

  Total secondary schools in LEA

  1996

  Local education authorities

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Lincolnshire

  63

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Liverpool

  33

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Luton

  12

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Manchester

  23

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Medway

  19

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Merton, LB of

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Middlesbrough

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Milton Keynes

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  12

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Newham, LB of

  15

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Norfolk

  52

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  North East Lincolnshire

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  North Somerset

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  North Tyneside

  11

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  North Yorkshire

  45

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Northamptonshire

  38

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Northumberland

  15

  —

  I

  —

  2

  3

  Nottingham, City of

  19

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  50

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Oldham

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Oxfordshire

  35

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Peterborough, city of

  13

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Plymouth, city of

  18

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Poole

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Portsmouth

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Reading

  8

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Redbridge

  17

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Redcar & Cleveland

  11

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Richmond-u-Thames, LB of

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Rochdale

  14

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Rotherham

  17

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Rutland

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Salford

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Sandwell

  19

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Sefton

  22

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Sheffield

  27

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Shropshire

  22

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Slough

  11

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Solihull

  13

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Somerset

  30

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  South Gloucestershire

  14

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  South Tyneside

  11

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Southend-on-Sea

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Southampton

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Southwark, LB of

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  St. Helens

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Staffordshire

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Stockport

  14

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Stockton on Tees

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Stoke on Trent

  17

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  38

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Sunderland

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Surrey

  53

  —

  1

  —

  6

  7

  Sutton, LB of

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Swindon

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Tameside

  18

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Telford and Wrekin

  13

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Thurrock

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Torbay

  8

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  15

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Trafford

  18

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Wakefield

  18

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Walsall

  20

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Waltham Forest, LB of

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Wandsworth, LB of

  9

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Warrington

  12

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Warwickshire

  37

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  West Berkshire

  10

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  West Sussex

  36

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Westminster, LB of

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  416W 417W

  Specialist Schools

  Number of operational Specialist Schools by LEA by specialism (information given is as of September each year)

  Total secondary schools in LEA

  1996

  Local education authorities

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Wigan

  21

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Wiltshire

  29

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Windsor & Maidenhead, RB of

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Wirral

  23

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Wokingham

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Wolverhampton

  18

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Worcestershire

  29

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  York, city of

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Total1

  3,152

  —

  31

  —

  146

  177

  Special Schools

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  31

  0

  146

  177

  1 Excluding special schools

  Specialist Schools

  Number of operational Specialist Schools by LEA by specialism (information given is as of September each year)

  1998

  2000

  Local education authorities

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Barking & Dagenham, LB of

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Barnet. LB of

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Bath & North East Somerset

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  3

  5

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bexley, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  2

  1

  4

  13

  20

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Blackpool

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Bolton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bradford

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  2

  2

  5

  Brent, LB of

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Bristol, city of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Bromley, LB of

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  Bury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1

  1

  —

  5

  7

  Camden, LB of

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  2

  4

  Cheshire

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1

  —

  4

  5

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Cornwall

  —

  1

  2

  6

  9

  —

  1

  3

  5

  9

  Coventry

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  1

  1

  —

  3

  5

  Croydon, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Cumbria

  —

  2

  —

  3

  5

  —

  2

  —

  4

  6

  Darlington

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Derby, city of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Derbyshire

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  Devon

  —

  1

  2

  2

  5

  —

  1

  2

  3

  6

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  1

  2

  5

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Durham

  1

  2

  —

  3

  6

  1

  2

  1

  8

  12

  Ealing. LB of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  3

  4

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  4

  Enfield, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Essex

  —

  1

  1

  8

  10

  1

  3

  3

  9

  16

  Gateshead

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  —

  5

  6

  —

  2

  1

  8

  11

  Greenwich, LB of

  2

  —

  —

  2

  4

  3

  —

  —

  2

  5

  Hackney, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Hammersmith & Fulham, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hampshire

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  3

  —

  2

  6

  Haringey, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Harrow, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Havering, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Hertfordshire

  —

  4

  —

  1

  5

  —

  5

  —

  3

  8

  418W 419W

  Specialist Schools

  Number of operational Specialist Schools by LEA by specialism (information given is as of September each year)

  1998

  2000

  Local education authorities

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Hillingdon, LB of

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Hounslow, LB of

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Isle of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Islington, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Kensington & Chelsea, RB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kent

  —

  1

  —

  6

  7

  —

  3

  1

  6

  10

  Kingston upon Hull, city of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Kingston-upon-Thames, RB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kirklees

  —

  1

  1

  3

  5

  —

  1

  1

  4

  6

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Lambeth, LB of

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Lancashire

  —

  2

  —

  11

  13

  —

  2

  —

  13

  15

  Leeds

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  5

  Leicester City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  1

  5

  6

  2

  —

  1

  5

  8

  Lewisham, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  2

  —

  —

  6

  8

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  —

  1

  1

  4

  6

  Luton

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Manchester

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  1

  1

  2

  3

  7

  Medway

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Merton, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Milton Keynes

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  —

  1

  1

  5

  7

  Newham, LB of

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  1

  1

  2

  6

  10

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  North Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  4

  North Tyneside

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  1

  —

  —

  5

  6

  Northamptonshire

  1

  2

  —

  5

  8

  1

  4

  1

  6

  12

  Northumberland

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  —

  1

  1

  5

  7

  Nottingham, city of

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Oxfordshire

  —

  1

  —

  4

  5

  1

  1

  1

  4

  7

  Peterborough, city of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Plymouth, city of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  3

  6

  Poole

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Redcar & Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Richmond-u-Thames, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Rochdale

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Rutland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Sandwell

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Sefton

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Sheffield

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Slough

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Solihull

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Somerset

  1

  —

  —

  3

  4

  1

  1

  —

  5

  7

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Southend-on-Sea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Southampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Southwark, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Stockport

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Stockton on Tees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  —

  1

  —

  —

  8

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Surrey

  —

  3

  —

  6

  9

  —

  3

  —

  7

  10

  Sutton, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Swindon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  420W 421W

  Specialist Schools

  Number of operational Specialist Schools by LEA by specialism (information given is as of September each year)

  1998

  2000

  Local education authorities

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Arts

  Language

  Sports

  Technology

  Total

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Torbay

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Trafford

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Walsall

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Waltham Forest, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Wandsworth, LB of

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  5

  Warrington

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  4

  5

  West Berkshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  —

  —

  2

  5

  West Sussex

  —

  2

  —

  5

  7

  —

  2

  1

  5

  8

  Westminster, LB of

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wigan

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  1

  1

  1

  4

  7

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  1

  1

  2

  4

  8

  Windsor & Maidenhead. RB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1

  1

  —

  3

  5

  Worcestershire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  5

  York, city of

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  4

  Total1

  17

  57

  26

  225

  325

  56

  99

  65

  308

  528

  Special Schools

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  5

  8

  Total

  17

  57

  26

  225

  325

  57

  99

  67

  313

  536

  1 Excluding special schools

  Special Educational Needs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 711W, on special educational needs, what written responses she has received since 23 October about the further revision of the draft SEN code document. [12967]

  Mr. Timms
  The Secretary of State has received a letter dated 29 October from the organisation Spearhead (Special Education at Home).

  The Department has also received two letters from hon. Members, both dated 26 October, enclosing correspondence from constituents which appears to refer to the earlier draft of the Code placed before Parliament in June, rather than the latest version.

  Fast Food and Drinks
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her policy on the provision of fast food and drinks machines in school corridors. [12999]

  Mr. Timms
  It is for local education authorities and schools in England to determine whether or not there should be any provision for fast food and drinks machines in school corridors.

  Publications (Charges)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the publications provided by her Department and the National Centre for Literacy and Numeracy where charges will be levied on schools for the making of(a) overhead transparencies and (b) enlarged copies; and if she will state the level of income received from schools as a result. [13020]
  422W
  Mr. Timms
  The licensing for the copying of extracts from published texts is the responsibility of the Copyright Licensing Agency. The new licence for schools, which took effect from April 2001, automatically includes permission to make overhead transparencies and enlarged copies. There is no requirement for schools to make any separate payment for this or to report such copying.

  Publications produced by the National Centre for Literacy and Numeracy on behalf of the Department may be copied free of charge by schools.

  Secondary Schools (Norfolk)
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which secondary schools in Norfolk had unfilled teacher posts at the latest available date. [13239]

  Mr. Tirnms
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which secondary schools in Norfolk had no spare capacity to admit new pupils at the latest available date. [13240]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not collect detailed information on this. It is for local education authorities to plan and keep under review the supply of school places and to ensure that there are sufficient school places. Each year LEAs must publish a School Organisation Plan which sets out how they plan to deal with any surplus or deficit of school places over a rolling five year period.

  Where an LEA can demonstrate overall growth in the need for places it may apply to the Department for capital funding.

  Pupils (Assaults)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the cases of(a) state primary and (b) state secondary school teachers who have been (i) suspended and (ii) convicted for assault on pupils since the abolition of corporal punishment. [13397]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Schools Reorganisation (Merton)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on progress by the schools reorganisation programme in the London borough of Merton towards its completion date of September 2002. [R] [12748]

  Mr. Timms
  The responsibility for the implementation of statutory proposals for school reorganisation rests with local education authorities. Merton local education authority is implementing the reorganisation of schools in the borough from a three to a two-tier system in stages over the academic years 2001–02 to 2003–04, with the new structure effectively in place from September 2002. Officials of the Department are providing support as necessary to the school reorganisation programme and, as recently as 5 November, had a meeting with Merton officers to discuss progress.

  Funding (Music)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria her Department uses to allocate varying levels of support from the Music Standards Fund to local education authorities. [12779]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]Music Standards Fund allocations in the current financial year are largely based on the levels established in 2000–01. This is to honour our formal commitment to ensuring that no LEA would receive less money through the Music Standards Fund in 2001–02 than in 2000–01. We also pledged to ensure that no LEA would be required to increase the level of its own match-funded contribution in 2001–02.

  The original MSF formula (from which this year's allocations are drawn) was introduced in the second year of the Music Standards Fund. It is made up of three main parts:
  an allocation based on each LEA's section 122 return which was intended to protect music services at pre-Music Standards Fund levels,
  an allocation based on bids made by individual LEAs in 1999–2000 for expanding their existing music services,
  an allocation based on our assessment of the need in each authority. 'Need' in this context was assessed in terms of the number of pupils in each authority, weighted to take account of socio-economic indicators for deprivation.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the amount allocated to local education authorities for Music Standards Fund grants in 2001–02 will be paid in full. [12786]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: In general, the Music Standards Fund grant is match-funded. For some LEAs support is provided at 100 per cent. and
  424W
  no match-funding is required. Where match-funding is required the LEAs need to make a contribution if they are to receive DfES grant.

  All LEAs required to do so have agreed to make their contributions and so they, together with those funded at 100 per cent., will receive the full grant.

  LEAs may retain any grant that remains unspent at the end of the year.

  School Provision (Hackney)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions her Department has had with the Commission for Racial Equality, with regard to the trust which is to run schools in Hackney. [12785]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]None on this matter, but there is of course regular communication between my Department and the Commission for Racial Equality across the range of education policy issues.

  Skills Councils
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which organisations her Department has identified to be approached as possible trailblazer sector skills councils; and what discussions her Department has held with each organisation. [12619]

  John Healey
  The Department has not approached any organisations about becoming a trailblazer sector skills council. Officials discussed this and other aspects of the sector skills council policy informally with organisations that contacted the Department. These meetings were without commitment by either party. On 2 November I wrote to national training organisations and trade associations inviting them to consider whether they would be interested and able to meet the rigorous requirements for becoming a trailblazer.

  Further Education (Lecturers)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to bring further education lecturers' pay into line with that of teachers; and if she will make a statement. [12964]

  John Healey
  It is for each college to agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with its staff in the context of the overall resources available to them. We are, however, aware of the funding gap between schools and FE and have pledged to bring up levels of funding and allow upwards convergence over time.

  This year alone, an additional £527 million is available for FE, a 12 per cent. real terms increase on last year. Funding will increase again next year by a further 3 per cent. This compares with the period between 1993–94 and 1996–97 when FE funding per FTE student fell by 12 per cent. in real terms.

  As part of the planned increases, we are investing more than £300 million in the Teaching Pay Initiative during the next three years to allow colleges, including sixth form colleges, to reward high quality teaching. This is separate from any general pay rise a teacher may receive.
  425W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to discourage the practice of employing lecturers on a part-time basis in further education colleges; and if she will make a statement. [12965]

  John Healey
  None. The recruitment and terms and conditions of staff in general further education and sixth form colleges are matters for college corporations and management to determine in consultation with the relevant unions.

  It is only right that colleges have the flexibility to determine the number of full-time and part-time staff they employ in line with local needs and circumstances.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research she has evaluated into the effects of part-time lecturers' employment on support offered to students at further education colleges; and if she will make a statement. [12963]

  John Healey
  Approximately two thirds of college lecturers work part-time. The Further Education National Training Organisation report "An analysis of the part-time lecturing staff in further education colleges in England and Wales (July 2000)" states that 25 per cent. of part-time staff offer extra-curricular assistance to students. In his last report, for 1999–2000, the Further Education Funding Council's Chief Inspector reported that 66 per cent. of colleges have good or outstanding support for students in place. He went on to say that "this aspect of cross-college provision continues to attract a higher proportion of grades 1 and 2 than any other". From the available evidence, colleges in general continue to provide effective student support while employing staff on both part-time and full-time contracts.

  Advanced Skills Teachers
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many advanced skills teachers there are in each local education authority; and if she will make a statement. [12840]

  Mr. Timms
  Advanced Skills Teachers (AST) in post in each local authority in January 2001 and the number of teachers who have passed assessment for the AST grade since assessments resumed in May 2001 are as follows:

  Local authority

  ASTs in post at January 2001

  Teachers passing AST assessment (Mar-September 2001)

  Barking and Dagenham

  3

  0

  Barnet

  10

  8

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  3

  0

  Bedfordshire

  2

  12

  Bexley

  0

  2

  Birmingham

  19

  2

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  0

  Blackpool

  0

  1

  Bolton

  7

  5

  Bournemouth

  6

  1

  Bracknell Forest

  2

  0

  Bradford

  2

  0

  Brent

  0

  0

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  Bristol, City of

  0

  0

  Bromley

  24

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  2

  0

  426W

  Local authority

  ASTs in post at January 2001

  Teachers passing AST assessment (May-September 2001)

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  2

  Camden

  0

  1

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  City of London

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  7

  2

  Coventry

  3

  0

  Croydon

  6

  2

  Cumbria

  11

  9

  Darlington

  6

  0

  Derby

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  7

  2

  Devon

  3

  2

  Doncaster

  2

  0

  Dorset

  2

  0

  Dudley

  0

  0

  Durham

  4

  0

  Ealing

  0

  0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  2

  10

  Enfield

  2

  0

  Essex

  49

  16

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  14

  17

  Greenwich

  2

  4

  Hackney

  0

  0

  Halton

  1

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  5

  Haringey

  0

  0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Hartlepool

  0

  1

  Havering

  0

  0

  Herefordshire

  6

  6

  Hertfordshire

  11

  3

  Hillingdon

  3

  9

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  1

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  Kent

  30

  16

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  4

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  1

  1

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  3

  4

  Lancashire

  13

  1

  Leeds

  7

  43

  Leicester

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  2

  1

  Lewisham

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  15

  23

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  Luton

  3

  0

  Manchester

  4

  1

  Medway

  2

  0

  Merton

  0

  1

  Middlesbrough

  2

  0

  Milton Keynes

  1

  2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  1

  Newham

  13

  4

  Norfolk

  3

  3

  North East Lincolnshire

  1

  4

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  4

  North Somerset

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  7

  6

  Northarnptonshire

  18

  3

  Northumberland

  1

  0

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  5

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  21

  1

  Peterborough

  13

  2

  Plymouth

  7

  6

  Poole

  0

  0

  Portsmouth

  3

  0

  Reading

  1

  0

  Redbridge

  0

  2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  3

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  3

  2

  427W

  Local authority

  ASTs in post at January 2001

  Teachers passing AST assessment (May-September 2001)

  Rochdale

  6

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  Rutland

  0

  0

  Sal ford

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  2

  Sefton

  5

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  6

  1

  Slough

  6

  5

  Solihull

  3

  0

  Somerset

  8

  8

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  4

  0

  Southampton

  0

  0

  Southend-on-Sea

  6

  5

  Southwark

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  Stockton-on-Tees

  4

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  Sunderland

  0

  12

  Surrey

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  3

  Swindon

  1

  0

  Tameside

  5

  3

  Telford and Wrekin

  1

  0

  Thurrock

  5

  4

  Torbay

  5

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  0

  Trafford

  0

  1

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  Walsall

  6

  0

  Waltham Forest

  3

  0

  Wandsworth

  7

  5

  Warrington

  7

  8

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  West Berkshire

  2

  1

  West Sussex

  6

  7

  Westminster

  13

  2

  Wigan

  2

  1

  Wiltshire

  3

  0

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1

  1

  Wirral

  1

  0

  Wokingham

  5

  5

  Wolverhampton

  3

  0

  Worcestershire

  7

  2

  York

  12

  21

  Totals

  563

  362

  The number of AST assessments between May and September 2001 is equal to 64 per cent. of the January figure of ASTs in post. reflecting the rapidly growing number of teachers interested in becoming ASTs. The Government are committed to the continuing expansion of the AST grade.

  Schools
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, if she will make a statement on her plans for further public investment in schools. [11358]

  Mr. Timms
  This Government are investing unprecedented sums to modernise schools. Since 1997, annual capital and recurrent investment in schools has increased by almost £5.5 billion in real terms, from £20.6 billion to over £26 billion. Our plans allow for a further real terms increase of £2.5 billion over the next two years.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools in Northamptonshire, have been granted funding for teacher training, indicating in each case their(a) phase and (b) location. [11281]

  Mr. Timms
  The following schools have been granted funding to act as recommending bodies for trainees on the Graduate and Registered Teacher Programmes (GRTP) in Northamptonshire since September 2000:

  School name

  Phase

  Town

  Magdalen School

  Secondary

  Brackley

  Lodge Park Technical College

  Secondary

  Corby

  Brooke Western CTC

  Secondary

  Corby

  St. James Infant School

  Primary

  Daventry

  Trinity School

  Secondary

  Northampton

  Mereway Upper School

  Secondary

  Northampton

  Northampton School for Boys

  Secondary

  Northampton

  Headlands School

  Primary

  Northampton

  Prince William School

  Secondary

  Oundle

  Ferrer School

  Secondary

  Rushden

  Rushden School

  Secondary

  Rushden

  Wrenn School

  Secondary

  Wellingborough

  In addition, the following organisations have received funding to train GRTP trainees in schools in Northamptonshire since September 2000.
  Centre for British Teachers (CfBT)
  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT)
  Northampton LEA
  Northamptonshire Teacher Training Partnership SCITT.

  There are two initial teacher training school-based consortia in Northamptonshire, based at:

  Lead school

  Phase

  Location

  Sponne School

  Secondary

  Towcester

  Northampton School for Boys

  Secondary

  Northampton

  University College Northampton also offers primary ITT in partnership with local primary schools. School involvement in teacher training changes from year to year and there is no central list of the schools involved.

  As to in-service training, the flexibility within the Standards Funds arrangements should enable schools to meet the key priorities for professional development; it is for schools to decide how much money they spend from the Standards Funds on this area.

  Further Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individual courses have been(a) commenced and (b) completed in further education each year since 1997–98. [12566]
  429W
  John Healey
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Total number of qualifications: starts and completions for council-funded provision in FE sector colleges

  Number

  1997–98

  Starts in the academic year

  4,716,573

  Completions in the academic year

  3,932,800

  1998–99

  Starts in the academic year

  4,497,223

  Completions in the academic year

  3,599,593

  1999–2000

  Starts in the academic year

  4,463,154

  Completions in the academic year

  3,581.458

  Notes:

  1. The data are taken from the Individualised Student Record (ISR)

  2. Starts and completions figures are based on a different student cohort—i.e. enrolments that start in a particular year do not necessarily end in the same year

  The Learning and Skills Council recently published data on retention rates which are based on qualifications over the whole length of the course, which includes those courses that are longer than one year. Using this definition, the retention rates are as follows:

  1997–98: 85 per cent.;

  1998–99: 84 per cent.; and

  1999–2000: 84 per cent.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the cost was of the Further Education Funding Council(a) for all purposes and (b) for administration in the last year of its operation;[12929]

  (2) what grants were made to training and enterprise councils (a) for all purposes, (b) for further education and (c) for administration in the last year of their operation;[12928]

  (3) what the budget is of the Learning and Skills Councils (a) at national level and (b) at local level for (i) all purposes and (ii) administration (A) in the current year and (B) in the coming year. [12930]
  430W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has taken on a range of functions previously carried out by a number of bodies, including the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), 72 Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs), the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), Government Offices, and the National Advisory Council on Education and Training Targets (NACET"T), as well as new work. For the latest year for which we have robust estimates available (1999–2000), our assessment is that the total spent on administration by the predecessor bodies, in relation to the relevant functions, was between £270 and £280 million.

  The LSC' s resource budget nationally for the financial year 2001–2002 is £5.5 billion. Of this, local LSCs have so far been allocated £4.955 billion. The LSC anticipates that the majority of the currently unallocated total funds will be directed to local LSCs during the remainder of the financial year. The LSC has been allocated £188 million for administration, of which £144 million has been allocated to local LSCs.

  These amounts increase in 2002–2003 to £7.4 billion in total (which includes programme funding of £1.35 billion funding for sixth forms) and £193 million for administration. It is not possible to disaggregate these figures to local level, because the LSC has not yet allocated next year's budget to local LSCs.

  We do not yet have final expenditure details for further education in 2000–01. Planned total funding for the FEFC for all purposes in 2000–01 was £3,530 million, excluding student support funds and employer contributions, of which £27 million was for administration.

  In 2000–2001, the last year of TECs' contracts with Government, the DIES paid them a total of £1,270 million for all purposes in cash terms. There were no specific grants to them for further education. No specific amount was set aside for administration within this figure—it was up to individual TECs to allocate their overall budget according to need. However, we know from the most recent consolidated TEC accounts, that TECs spent over £260 million in total on staffing in 1999–2000.

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

Eye Examinations
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to make the public aware of diagnostic health benefits of eye examinations, including general health prognosis.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, last year some 16 million people had their sight tested. However, still too few people appreciate the benefits of the eye examination that optometrists carry out to identify early potential eye disease. The department is discussing with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and representatives of the optical professions how we can better get that message across. We hope to make some significant changes before long.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that when your Lordships' House debated the question of free eye examinations—we voted some years ago in favour of retaining them—we passed, on the same day, provisions relating to the possibility of allowing people to buy spectacles over the counter. Those two matters were related. It was never intended that being able to buy spectacles over the counter would deter people from having the health benefits of an eye check. Does he agree that it is important for people to be assessed for eye conditions and that an optometrist can see, through the eye—which is the window—possible hypertension due to arteriosclerosis and also the possibility of strokes? Is it not a fact that much wider health diagnostic benefits can now be achieved through eye examinations?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords. I agree with the noble Baroness not only that skilled eye examinations can identify other non-eye-related potential diseases but also that the early diagnosis of a range of other—often age-related—eye diseases is crucial. I refer, for example, to the need to identify glaucoma and to the fact that some forms of eye disease are related to diabetes and to cataracts—all will be more curable the earlier that they are diagnosed. It is crucial to get the message across to 60 year-olds and above that regular eye tests are necessary not just because those tests may establish whether a person's sight is failing but because they will identify at an early stage other health deficiencies.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in light of the Minister's remarks, is it not essential that free eye tests are made available to all, not just to the young and the old? On a less serious note, what account is the Minister taking of the Harry Potter effect?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I fear that I am very much in danger of falling into the "High Court judge" syndrome, particularly in relation to the latter part of the noble Lord's question. On the first part of his question, we already give free eye tests to a substantial proportion of the population: to children, to those over 60—we introduced that provision in 1999 —and to those with a certain income eligibility. For those who do not get the test for free, its cost, at an average of about £18, is unlikely to be a significant deterrent to getting one's eyes tested.
On Harry Potter, I have been advised by my daughter to read the books. I will probably be better able to answer the noble Lord's question when I have done so.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister confident that it is sufficient to ask a driver just to tick a box that states that he or she can read a number plate at 25 yards? Will that ensure that we have good, safe drivers on the roads, whatever the age of the applicant?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, people aged 70 and above have to go further than she suggested—they have to demonstrate in a range of tests that they are capable. If noble Lords will bear with me, I shall check my notes. My understanding is that at 70, everyone has to reapply for a driving licence and that when they do so they have to make a much more detailed statement about eye testing. If I am in error, I shall be pleased to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: Wrong!
Lord Filkin: Wrong, my Lords? All right—I stand humbly corrected.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the question of eye tests for those over 70 who want to drive has often been discussed in your Lordships' House? We have never been able to succeed in getting an amendment through, hut we think that it is desirable to have a more objective assessment relating to eye tests. In relation to those who are over 70, does the Minister agree that extra administrative costs would not be involved because one has to reapply at that age in any case?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I relish reviewing our discussion of those points and shall reconsider them.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is no standard sight screening in primary and secondary schools? What is he going to do

299
about that, even if it means that we end up with lots of Harry Potters? I am sure that my children would be happy to be among them!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking that question. We are concerned about the matter. It seems to us that screening to identify eye deficiency on school entry is important. That service has reduced during the past 10 or 15 years and the Government intend to look at how best to introduce screening for all children on entry to primary school. As regards later ages, the evidence and advice from the optical profession is less strong about its necessity. However, it would represent a significant movement if we introduced screening for all four or five year-olds on entry to school.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that Question Time is much more fun when the questions and answers are short?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Yes.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that next week is national mouth cancer awareness week? Will he assure the public that he will take steps to ensure that the diagnostic benefits of a regular dental examination similarly apply to optical examinations?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, but we will consider it.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, in a previous answer, the Minister mentioned the connection between diabetes and sight problems. What is the likelihood of having in the near future a relatively cheap screening test for diabetes, in order to establish whether a person has the disease? That would undoubtedly make some inroads into the connected eye concerns.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, departmental policy currently is that people with diabetes should have their eyes tested at least once a year. With regard to the more specific screening methodology that the noble Viscount recommended, we shall investigate it and write to him.

Supreme Court
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hoosonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they would like to see progress towards a Supreme Court separate from the House of Lords, as advocated by the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Bingham of Cornhill.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, it is of course a singular arrangement for a Supreme Court to be housed in a House of Parliament; but it works. The contribution that the Law Lords
300
make to our debates is highly appreciated. They chair various committees of this House. The Wakeham Royal Commission endorsed the continuance of their unique role, as do the Government in the White Paper of yesterday. In this country we have never applied a rigid doctrine of the separation of powers because we are pragmatists, not purists.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer. However, is it not of great importance that the matter was raised by the senior Law Lord? In view of that—the senior Law Lord is suggesting an important change in our constitution—is it not of supreme importance that the House should debate the matter properly? In light of the fact that the matter was raised at such a level, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his influence in the Government, ensure that an opportunity is given for a full debate on the subject?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has not misunderstood the senior Law Lord. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, has not, so far as I am aware, made any proposal in relation to the Law Lords' membership of this House. A new Supreme Court building of high architectural merit in the heart of London may be one of the most worthy of ambitions and is entertained by the senior Law Lord, but the Government have no plans for such a project.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as most people in this country seek justice in the existing courts, can my noble and learned friend tell the House whether he has any plans to improve services in the existing courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I plan or contemplate new court buildings, in various parts of the country, offering better facilities for victims and the disabled, not to mention much-needed improvements to the High Court in the Strand. New court buildings are planned for Sheffield, Bristol, Exeter and East Anglia and a new major court centre in the heart of Manchester is a strong gleam in my eye. I believe that all those matters are higher priorities than a new building for our Supreme Court.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, are supported by the Lord Chief Justice, by the Master of the Rolls and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, who last night devoted an after-dinner speech at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies to the subject? In those circumstances, perhaps the noble and learned Lord might reconsider allowing the matter to be debated.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always influenced by what the higher judiciary say, either judicially or extra-judicially, but I have stated the Government's priorities.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has defended the current situation on the ground that it works. Will he use the same principle with regard to other matters in relation to your Lordships' House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, our plans for the reform of your Lordships' House are to make it a better place and one which works better.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that a number of Law Lords take the view that it is inappropriate for them to take part in and to contribute to the debates? Does he further accept that there are serious constitutional issues in relation to this matter that need to be the subject of a proper debate, not only in this House but also in the wider community in this country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that these issues are widely debated in the country. They have also very recently been considered by a Royal Commission. Debates in this House are of course a matter for the usual channels.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend comment on the recent Denning Society lecture given by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, which touched on these matters?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, is not in his place. With respect to the noble Lord, I feel that he fell into a basic error in asserting that a Lord Chancellor can be non-political. If a Lord Chancellor were non-political, presumably he would not sit in the Cabinet, as the Cabinet is the political executive that takes political decisions collectively. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, also says that the Lord Chancellor should be in charge of non-political law reform. In fact, practically all our law reform has a strong political dimension. He said that the Lord Chancellor should continue to be responsible for the courts, but expenditure on the courts, as I indicated in my earlier answers, requires political priorities to be settled and the Lord Chancellor is accountable to Parliament for that expenditure. For once, I believe that the customary rigour of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, was lost.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the present somewhat anomalous system works simply because the Law Lords are very careful to avoid party politics and because, historically, Lord Chancellors have not been too party political themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I recall very well the late and much loved Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, stomping the country during a general election when he was Lord Chancellor. As regards the Law Lords, the senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, has set out in this House
302
the principles by which the Law Lords will take their individual decisions on whether to participate in our deliberations. I have often said that in debate in this House Law Lords should avoid—I am sure that they are prudent enough to do so—the appearance of expressing concluded views of a judicial character on issues that arise in legislation under debate so as to ensure that they do not thereby disqualify themselves from sitting.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble and learned friend for a post-prandial answer. How can the Law Lords ensure that their role in this Chamber does not run into conflict with their role as members, in effect, of our Supreme Court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Wakeham Commission made a recommendation on that subject. On 22nd June 2000, on behalf of all the Law Lords, the senior Law Lord made a statement in this House on the principles that the Law Lords would observe. That statement is to be found in Hansard of that day and I am not aware that his statement has subsequently been subject to any criticism at all.

Aviation Security
3.17 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will conduct an inquiry into measures necessary to prevent hijacking of passenger aircraft.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we already have measures in place to deter the hijacking of passenger aircraft. They were substantially enhanced on 11th September. An urgent and wide-ranging review of aviation security measures is under way which is looking at ways to improve aviation security including the methods used by the terrorist.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that the danger of hijacking sadly remains a great one for passengers on civilian aircraft? In the circumstances, will he ensure that everything is done to speed up the measures to which he has referred and to ensure the inclusion of three additional ones: first, the installation of CCTV on flight decks; secondly, the introduction of electronic passenger blacklisting; and thirdly, and most importantly, that on all appropriate flights British airlines should have "skymarshals" in the same way as certain other airlines do?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that there is a serious threat. Everything that can be done should be done. As I indicated, on 11th September measures were increased at British airports and in relation to aircraft in order to increase aviation

303
security. For security reasons it would not be appropriate for me to say what the specific measures were. However, in addition a committee of officials has been set up which reports to the Home Secretary and it is looking urgently at what further measures should be introduced. It is considering all the measures referred to by the noble Lord and it will report as quickly as possible.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, first, can the Minister tell the House when he expects the Civil Aviation Authority to issue any guidance to the airlines? It is now two months since the dreadful incident and no guidance from the CAA has been given to the airlines on what steps they should take. Secondly, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware, from today the Government are to charge airlines for the cost of third-party, war and terrorism risks. That cost could be up to £50 million a year, which is a new revenue that the Government will receive. Will the noble and learned Lord consider altering some of the other charges that the Government levy on passengers so that the airlines do not suffer a loss of revenue in these very difficult times?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the issuance of guidance by the CAA, that body is independent. However, the CAA is involved in the working parties which are looking at a range of measures that can be introduced. We should do it as quickly as possible, but we should not rush into things that could cause more difficulties than initially we thought might be the case. As to charges, there are no immediate plans to review them.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, important as it is to attempt to defend each of the points at which terrorists may strike, one can never be totally effective? Does he also agree that it is at least as important, if not more so, to strike at the roots of terrorism from whence those attacks are organised?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with both parts of the question. We shall do all that we can to improve security. The noble Lord is right that one can never provide complete security. Of the greatest importance is to attack the roots of the terrorists who caused the events of 11th September.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that air travel is still one of the safest forms of transport and that he should do everything he can to encourage people to bear in mind the risks but realise that there are dangers in many other things that they do, particularly as regards other modes of transport?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, aviation is a very safe form of travel, but that is no reason not to continue to take measures and to do such investigations as are appropriate to ensure that safety improves even further.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend acknowledge that prior to 11th September the approach taken in civil aviation was that aircrew would obey the instructions of hijackers, calm the passengers, try to land the aircraft and allow negotiations to take place? Will my noble and learned friend also give an assurance to the House that since 11th September that kind of approach is being discouraged?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one of the matters that is being considered is the training to be given to aircrew in the light of the events of 11th September. The last thing in the world that I should do is to say how aircrew should behave in individual cases. The correct course is to look very carefully at the right approach and, once the matter has been properly thought through, give guidance.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that low-cost airlines, whose whole philosophy is based on cutting costs, will be required to observe security standards which are every bit as strict as those which apply to state carriers?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the requirements of aviation security both in relation to getting passengers on to aircraft and what happens when they are on board will be applied across the board. Of course different rules will apply to different aircraft as they are not all the same size, but the rules will apply to all airlines.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that when a passenger arrives at the home airport of my American wife, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for an internal US flight he must show photographic identity both at the check-in and the departure gate? Is the Minister also aware that at the said airport spot checks are made of suitcases to be loaded into the hold? Further, is my noble and learned friend aware that last month my luggage, which was going to Chicago, provided great fun to a young lady who sniffed all the bottles and looked at all the books, no doubt to discover whether among them was the autobiography of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific events at the airport described by my noble friend. However, I am aware that security measures have been substantially enhanced at all American airports following the attack on 11th September.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, do security checks include baggage handlers?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one of the matters that is being looked at by the team of officials is what checks need to be made on those who work right throughout the airport, in particular those who

305
have access to restricted areas. That is a very important aspect of what is being looked at by the committee at the moment.

Millennium Dome
3.25 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vauxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current timetable for the disposal of the Millennium Dome.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no firm timetable for the disposal of the Millennium Dome. The aim is to secure a sale as quickly as possible, consistent with value for money, securing a worthwhile and sustainable future for the Dome and a deliverable outcome. Ongoing market testing is exploring all avenues. On professional advice, we are in discussion with a small number of serious contenders. We announced this in July. To reveal details of the discussion would not be conducive to a successful conclusion.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that not unexpected Answer. I declare an interest in that I visited the Dome and admired the construction and design but found the content totally unimaginative. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how much taxpayers' money has been spent so far in maintaining the Dome? How much money has been paid so far to private consultants to test the market for the sale of the Dome? Will he give a guarantee that no further taxpayers' money will be put at risk? After all, the Prime Minister pledged that it would stand for decades as an example of British achievement. Can the Minister tell us what achievement?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, since 1st January 2001 the running costs incurred by English Partnerships have been £1.9 million. The running costs incurred by NMEC, the company that owned the Dome until quite recently, have been £2.1 million. In relation to decommissioning, £9.75 million has been incurred by EP and £6 million by NMEC. In terms of fees and costs for the sale process, from 15th February until the end of the year, the cost will be £1.7 million. As far as concerns those costs, some have been incurred by NMEC. That is money provided by the Millennium Commission and entrance fees. The rest has been provided by English Partnerships. That money will be recouped from the sale proceeds.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the sale process has been going on for nearly two years? Does he agree that the sale of the Dome has been marked by the same level of incompetence as was exhibited when the Dome was originally built and operated?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not agree. As far as concerns the sale process, we have acted at all stages on professional advice in relation to it. The professional advice at the moment is to test the market, which we have done, identify serious bidders and discuss with them the possible purchase of the Dome. That is the process we are following which we are advised will meet the aims that I set out in my original Answer. We are following that advice.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the regeneration in the area of the Dome continues and, thanks to the Dome, there are now some splendid houses for different types of people to buy and new medical services? Those who live in that area are delighted that the Dome is still there.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very much aware of that. As my noble friend will know, in addition to the area of the Dome the whole of the north Greenwich peninsula was decontaminated. To the south of the Dome is the Millennium Village, which has a number of houses, including affordable homes, a school and health centre. The people of Greenwich and the area are delighted that the Dome is there and wish it to stay.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we would not criticise him if he saved himself further embarrassment and just knocked down the Dome, despite the fact that the Dome stands as a shining monument—dare I say, beacon—to a massive government cock up?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Viscount will be aware that it was his party which decided to embark on the Dome. As I have said all along, I believe that the right thing to do is to see the project through and ensure that there is a sustainable future for the Dome which provides value for money and brings regenerative benefits to the area in which the Dome is built.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept, having spoken of skilled professional advice, that the art of life as well as politics is to know when and whether to accept such advice?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes. I am quite sure that the advice that the Government are receiving is of the highest quality and is the right advice to accept.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that he could learn something from his colleague in the Cabinet Mr Byers about the technique for putting businesses into receivership? The Dome is insolvent and has been since its inception. Why does he not face up to it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Dome is not insolvent. As the noble Lord is aware, NMEC at

307
all stages traded entirely solvently and paid all its creditors. We are now talking about what should be done with the Dome building. The building itself cannot be insolvent. We are looking at whether a future can be found for the Dome. I believe that it can.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Land Registration Bill [HL], have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 4 [When title must be registered]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 13. leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 13. I thank the Minister and her Bill team, together with the Land Registry, for taking the time to consider in some detail with us on these Benches a number of points which were unresolved to our satisfaction on Report.
I turn to the amendments. After much discussion and thought we have decided to revisit the term of leases that must be registered. It was raised both in Committee and on Report. The minimum term of lease that currently must be registered is 21 years. The Bill as currently drafted will reduce the term to seven years. It is our view that, in consideration of the adjustment required and the practical implications for both the Land Registry and for conveyancers, the Government should rethink that sharp reduction and strike a balance at 14 years, particularly given the contemporaneous introduction of the welcome feat of electronic conveyancing.
Much has been said by the Minister about the Land Registry's ability to deliver. We know from discussions that that confidence is shared by representatives of the Land Registry. However, we do not share that degree of confidence, given the reality that almost all new electronic systems of size—particularly of this magnitude—endure setbacks. Often they need readjustment and a rethink as the systems develop.
Therefore, limiting the number of leases which must be registered to those with a term of 14 years or more allows a more realistic chance for the Land Registry to implement electronic conveyancing and for conveyancers to adjust to it with minimal disruption and, it is to be hoped, a good deal of success.
It is not our intention to be intransigent, nor inflexible. We can envisage, once the electronic system is working satisfactorily and the conveyancing world
308
has adjusted to the change, reducing the term significantly. That said, it would be remiss of me to ignore those reasons in principle for limiting the number of leases which will have to be registered to no good purpose. After all, registration is carried out at the tenant's expense. He pays both the Land Registry fees and the professional fees. Some of the leases in question will be of residential premises. That will therefore add to the cost of home ownership.
The majority will probably be of business premises. That cost will become an additional overhead which adds nothing to the profitability or productivity of a business. It is yet another burden, particularly on small businesses.
The Minister has informed us that the business community favours the proposed seven years. I must respond by saying that those in the business community whom I have contacted and spoken to within the past 24 hours, find that hard to fathom. Financial transparency of commercial transactions is suggested by the Government as a reason. However, I have yet to meet a businessman or woman, at least not one who remains in business, who is not capable and who does not make it a priority to know the commercial property marketplace. They do not need the helping hand of the Land Registry for that.
We have laboured this point at each stage of the Bill. I make no apology for that. It is an issue that matters very much to a great many people. I urge the Government to reconsider their position. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, as the noble Baroness has rightly said, we have already discussed extensively similar amendments both in Committee and on Report.
In relation to e-conveyancing, the noble Baroness suggested that it will happen contemporaneously. It will not. The reduction in leases will take effect in all probability in 2003. Electronic conveyancing needs rather more discussion with the profession and would follow at least three or maybe four years after.
The advantages of registration for conveyancers and consumers are well known and, I think, to date have been unchallenged. Extending registration will make the market more transparent. The lack of reliable information on leases, and in particular on short leases, prompted the Government to be cautious about accepting the economic and commercial arguments for making all leases over three years registrable at once.
In the financial years 1999–2000 and 1998–1999, the Stamp Office stamped some 75,000 and 100,000 new leases respectively. The overwhelming majority are already registrable. But 9,000 and 12,000 were for between 14 and 20 years, and 11,000 and 17,000 for between seven and 13 years. So the Land Registry can expect between 20,000 and 40,000 or so new leases from the proposals in the Bill, plus assignments of extant unregistered leases where the unexpired residue

309
exceeds the relevant minimum. Figures on lease length from the investment property databank are of the same order.
The figures should be seen in the context of the overall workload. In 1999, the Land Registry received over 3 million applications to change the register following a dealing with the whole or part of a registered estate, and 373,000 first registrations.
It is against that background that I have been assured by the chief land registrar that the Land Registry could, without detriment to its other services and without electronic conveyancing, be prepared to register all leases of seven years or more by the time the Bill is implemented.
The Stamp Office recorded some 4,000 leases of seven years or less in 1999–2000. The Land Registry currently believes that it would be able to accept these for registration within a comparatively short period of the Bill's implementation. That helpfully suggests that a further reduction in the length of registrable leases should be feasible relatively soon, although it is wise to be cautious about that. Early reduction would be desirable because it must be a nuisance and an inconvenience for conveyancers to have to deal with two streams on leases, involving registered and unregistered leases. The shorter that period of dual running is, the better.
In view of these figures, and the chief land registrar's unequivocal assurance, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. We understand the concerns that she has expressed, but regrettably we do not find them to be well founded.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The Minister knows that I am disappointed because, as she made clear in Committee, during consultation not one voice was heard as to where the dividing line should be. We have had a great deal of discussion with the Law Society. It has a very different view on this issue. It will be its members who will have to work with the Land Registry. As we all know, the Law Society represents the bulk of solicitors in this country. Therefore, it represents the vast majority of conveyancers. It should be stated that, although its working party, which was set up initially to consider the draft Bill, was made aware of the Government's proposals to reduce the term of years from 21, it was not at any time thereafter consulted as to the exact term, or the sort of term, that its members would think advisable or practicable. That is surprising and disappointing. We understand and appreciate the confidence that the Land Registry holds and I accept what the Minister has said about the time-frame within which the new arrangement will commence, before e-conveyancing is implemented. In the scheme of things, however, I think that three to four years is a fairly short term in relation to the enormity of the task ahead.
The Minister has endeavoured to persuade and reassure us that the amendment is not necessary. However, I am afraid that I am not persuaded and would like to test the opinion of the House.
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, I

Anelay of St Johns. B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jopling, L.

Blatch,B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Boardman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Liverpool. E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Burnham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Byford, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Chadlington, L.

Montrose, D.

Coe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Colwyn, L.

Naseby. L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Noakes, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Feldman, L.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fookes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Freeman, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Slim, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Higgins, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Vivian, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Waddington. L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Christopher, L.

Addington, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clement- Jones, L.

Alderdice, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Amos, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Crawley, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bach, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Billingham, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L

Bradshaw, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Brookman, L.

Falkender, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkland, V.

Burlison, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B

Campbell-Savours, L.

Faulkner of Worcester. L.

Carter. L. [Teller]

Filkin, L.

Chan, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

311

Gale, B.

Mishcon, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Mitchell, L.

Goodhart, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Goudie, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Newby, L.

Grabiner, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Northover, B.

Grenfell, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Grocott, L.

Parekh, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pendry, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Harrison, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Haskel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hayman. B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Razzall, L.

Healey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rennard, L.

Hooson, L.

Richard, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rooker, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Russell, E.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Serota, B.

Chancellor)

Sharman, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sheldon, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Simon, V.

Laird, L.

Stallard, L.

Layard, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lipsey, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lockwood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tomlinson, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

[Teller]

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Whitaker, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Whitty, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNally, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Methuen, L.

Privy Seal)

Milner of Leeds, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.52 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved. ]
Clause 15 [Right to lodge]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved. ]
Clause 27 [Dispositions required to be registered]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved. ]
Clause 80 [Compulsory registration of grants out of demesne land]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 82 [Escheat etc]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 29, line 28, leave out "the effect of"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 to 20. They are all drafting amendments.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 15 correct Clause 82 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 respectively. The intention is that the rules to be made under Clause 82(1) may provide for determination of a freehold estate to be dependent on the meeting of registration requirements rather than for the effect of determination to be so dependent. The remaining four government amendments are of greater substance and bring the procedures for restraint orders in four criminal statutes into line with the Bill.
Where a restraint order is made under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, the Terrorism Act 2000 or the International Criminal Courts Act 2001, and it affects registered land, it can currently be protected by means of a caution against dealings or, if the situation warrants, an inhibition. The Bill abolishes cautions against dealings and inhibitions. As restraint orders under the statutes affected prohibit dealings with the land, the appropriate mechanism under the Bill will be a restriction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Electronic dispositions: formalities]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 33, line 15. after "certified," insert—
"( ) each electronic signature was made by, or with the authority of, the person whose signature it purports to be,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to encourage the Minister to reassure conveyancers of their position in regard to electronic signatures where the signature is misused.
The system needs to be secure to retain the confidence not only of the public in their house-buying processes but of commercial enterprises and inward investors buying factories and offices in England and Wales. Therefore, individuals, firms and companies should not be liable where authority was not given.
There are no available secure operating systems for personal computers, and the security risks to which they are vulnerable are notorious. The risk of surreptitious copying of security information from a personal computer, or its subversion to carry out transactions other than those apparent to, and intended by, the user, are risks which firms of solicitors are in no position either to eliminate or to bear.
For these reasons, we would regard it as unacceptable for conveyancers to carry the risk of their electronic signature keys being obtained and misused by third parties. The use of presumptions in statutory terms and their contractual equivalents should, in our view, be ruled out by clear statutory language, as we have proposed, the effect of which should be that it is for the relying party to prove that a disputed signature was made by, or with the authority of, the purported signatory.
If technology is developed which can effectively eliminate the risk of the user being impersonated, then relying parties will find their burden of proof easy to discharge. We believe that currently available technology is very far from succeeding in this

313
objective, even having regard to proposals for the use of smart cards or biometric identifiers. Relying parties face real risks in accepting electronic signatures, which may amount to undetectable forgeries, but it would be wrong as a matter of policy to allow them to solve the problem by transferring the risk to purported signatories.
Where relying parties are major institutions, such as the Land Registry, other government agencies or financial institutions, they are far better placed than firms of solicitors and licensed conveyancers to promote the development of technology to eliminate the risks. That is a further reason for ensuring that they continue to carry those risks.
In essence, will the Government reassure us today that, in the event there is a mistake on the Land Registry as a result of the misuse of an electronic signature, the Land Registry will indemnify the solicitor or licensed conveyancer against the losses incurred as a result of that mistake, and that the right to recourse will not be pursued by the Land Registry against the solicitor or licensed conveyancer concerned unless they are at fault? Further, can the Minister confirm that the onus of proof would be on the Land Registry to show fault? I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand and sympathise with the concerns expressed about the possible consequences of unauthorised misuse of electronic signatures, which is the issue that lies behind the amendment.
Two aspects need to be considered. First, if a transaction were completed and registered on the basis of an unauthorised electronic document, there could be grounds for rectification of the register and for indemnity from the Land Registry for the victim. Secondly, a conveyancer who has acted in accordance with the arrangements for access to the network, and who has taken the sensible steps needed to preserve the system's security, should not bear the liability for harm caused by careless, malicious or criminal action taken by others. I am very happy to give the reassurance that the noble Baroness seeks.
These practices are no more than the application to electronic transactions of established principles that already apply to transactions in paper form. Under the present law and under this Bill, where indemnity is paid, the Land Registry has rights of recourse analogous to rights of subrogation against the wrongdoer. When the then Land Registration Bill was passing through the House in November 1996, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—who, regrettably, is no longer in her place—said on behalf of the then government that,
"it is neither the practice nor the intention of HM Land Registry to resort to its rights of recourse against those who are neither fraudulent nor negligent. It"—
that is the power of recourse—
"is a power that will continue to be used only in bad cases".— [Official Report, 18/11/96; col. 1166.]
This practice will continue.
314
That Bill became the Land Registration Act 1997. I am happy to confirm that the principles which have guided the Land Registry in relation to the paper system will continue to operate in the new world of electronic conveyancing.
In particular, the Land Registry also accepts that the burden lies with it to satisfy itself that there has indeed been a "bad case" of fraud or negligence before seeking recourse against a conveyancer. The proper security precautions that will be needed when electronic conveyancing is introduced will have to be discussed with conveyancers and their professional bodies when drafting the network access agreements, which will also have to be approved by Parliament.
I have repeatedly made it clear that the Government are determined to work with stakeholders to develop robust and secure electronic conveyancing systems. But having said that, I do not believe that the amendment is either timely or necessary. It is untimely because the details of electronic conveyancing and electronic signatures have not yet been worked out. Only the most generic conditions should be included in Clause 91(3). It is unnecessary because, if such a condition were to prove necessary—which I doubt it could be added under the rule-making power in Clause 91(3)(d). I hope that in the light of my reassurance and the comments that I have made the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full and reassuring response. I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 46, line 10, leave out from "occupation" to end of line 11.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14.
These amendments were debated at some length in Committee and again on Report. Again, after much thought and discussion, we want to urge the Minister to reconsider this point.
A person in actual occupation of land who possesses an interest under a trust of land is entitled by virtue of his occupation to protection in respect of that interest. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 and paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 3 withhold that protection if the person in actual occupation is entitled to an interest under a strict settlement. When we moved the amendment in Committee and on Report, we saw no justification for the discriminatory treatment of the beneficiary under the strict settlement, and we see none now.
We accept that under the existing legislation interests under strict settlements do not constitute overriding interests. But, as the Law Commission points out in paragraph 2.69 of its Third Report on Land Registration of 1987, the distinction in the treatment of beneficiaries under strict settlements and

315
beneficiaries under trusts for sale—now trusts of land—was probably unintended and was in principle unjustifiable. In the recent consultative document (at paragraph 5.63) the Law Commission and the Land Registry both "readily accept" that rights under strict settlement should be capable of existing as overriding interests. We agree wholeheartedly with that view.
As I said on Report, there is a further important consideration to which the Law Commission adverts in its 1987 report. The strict settlement was the classical type of landed settlement designed to preserve family estates from generation to generation, and in this context the need to protect the beneficial interest of persons in actual occupation will seldom, if ever, arise.
However, one of the consequences of the 1925 legislation—one that was not appreciated at the time—has been the unintentional and informal creation of strict settlements in circumstances where the machinery of the Settled Land Act 1925 is inappropriate and often not properly implemented. It is in this context that the exclusion of beneficiaries under strict settlements who are in actual occupation of land is capable of operating unjustly.
I make no apology for adopting an example similar to the one that I used on Report. A widow entitled to a life interest in the former matrimonial home under the will of her husband will be entitled to protection if in actual occupation only if the property was subject to a "trust for sale". In the absence of this magic formula—which may well have been omitted in a home-made or informal will—the widow will be entitled to no protection. When she is evicted, it will be cold comfort to her to know that she is one of the "comparatively few people" who will be affected by the abandonment of the Law Commission's recommendation to extend the protection to persons in her position. The fact that a widow under a strict settlement unintentionally created by a home-made will is one of a diminishing band is not a good reason for depriving her of the protection that the law accords to someone with almost identical rights under a trust of land.
At the risk of detaining the House further, perhaps I may offer a second example to amplify the point. A man of modest means whose main asset is an ex-council house bought under the right-to-buy legislation makes a home-made will stating: "I will give my house to my wife for her lifetime and after her death to my son and I appoint my son my executor". He dies before 1997, so there is an accidental strict settlement, and the son, without legal advice, and therefore without the error being spotted, takes a grant of probate and gets himself registered as proprietor without any restriction on his powers of disposition being entered. After the new land registration legislation comes into force, the son, living with his mother following a divorce, mortgages the property for an advance to start up a business. He tells the bank, "My father left me the house, but of course I let my mother stay there", and the bank accepts that—unwisely perhaps, but such things happen.
Let us suppose that the son's business then goes bust, as so often happens, and the bank seeks possession with a view to selling the property. The mother would have been safe if the land had been held on trust for sale/trust of land, but as the Bill stands she has no defence to the possession claim, because her interest is under a Settled Land Act settlement, and her occupation of the property does not suffice to make it binding on the bank. A mortgage is more likely to create a serious problem than a sale, because even if the mother is not actually consulted on a proposal to sell, she will find out about it on completion and be able to do something then; whereas a mortgage may well not come to light until after the money has been lost and/or the son has absconded. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to make two brief points. First, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on the substance of this matter. It seems to me that it is anomalous to treat beneficiaries under strict settlements governed by the Settled Land Act in a different way from beneficiaries under the trust for sale or, since 1997, the trust for land. I can see no justification for that. It would have been better if these passages had been omitted from the Bill.
Secondly, I hope that the noble Baroness will not on this occasion divide the House. This is a Law Commission Bill and will undoubtedly improve land ownership and conveyancing. The problem that has arisen here is a fairly minor one. Although I hope that the Government will reconsider the point in the light of the arguments justifiably advanced the —Government will have an opportunity to do so before the Bill goes to another place—it does not seem appropriate for the Bill to be made the subject, on this particular issue, of a ping-pong between the two Houses. That is a view that I shall consistently take when we come to debate my own amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness for their comments. I under-stand the basis on which the amendment has been proposed. However, as the noble Lord rightly said, we had a good and full debate on the same amendment both in Committee and on Report.
Our reasons for opposing the amendment may be summarised as follows. The Bill proceeds on the basis that there should be as few overriding interests as possible. The Law Commission and the Land Registry were prepared to consider an exception for such settlements. They put the proposal to consultation, and they received a large response. Many expert lawyers expressed their views. I believe I am correct in saying that, without exception, those who responded told us, quite sharply, that there was no purpose in making such an exception. The Bill as drafted reflects the outcome of that consultation. We took the consultative process very seriously. There is little point in having proper consultation if you do not listen to those with whom you consult. That is the first reason. One of the other aims of the Bill was to keep matters simple. The responses were acted upon.

317
Thirdly, there appears to be no evidence that the present provision has ever caused any hardship in practice. We believe that this is a theoretical and not a practical or real problem. Our reasons are recorded in more detail at cols. 1328 and 1329 of Hansard of 30th October. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In essence, while we accept that this would affect only a few people and a diminishing group of people, we believe that nothing is to be lost by agreeing to the amendment. It is an anomaly which should be dealt with and we prefer it to be dealt with here and now. Far from anything being lost, there is something to be gained. There is no justification for discriminating against any person who may be affected by the proposal. Taking our first example, if it came to litigation the widow would have to demonstrate her title to the interest. The fact that she was in occupation under a strict settlement would then emerge. In other words, the fact that it is a strict settlement is bound to emerge in litigation.
I understand that the Government have been in consultation on this and all other points. However, we on these Benches have also consulted extensively and have been given a very different point of view. There is a purpose in making an exception in this case. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says in supporting the amendment in spirit. I cannot understand why the Bill being drafted by the Law Commission makes it different from any other Bill which needs amendment. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Crathorne, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Denham, L.

Biffen, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Blatch, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Boardman, L.

Elton, L.

Bowness, L.

Flather, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Fookes, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Freeman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Burnham, L.

Glentoran, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hanham, B.

Byford, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Caithness, E.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Higgins, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Howe, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Chadlington, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Colwyn. L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

318

King of Bridgwater, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Rawlings, B.

Liverpool, E.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Luke, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Montrose, D.

Stewartby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde. L.

Naseby, L.

Tenby, V.

Noakes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northesk, E.

Trumpington, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Tugendhat, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Vivian, L.

Oxfuird,V.

Waddington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Berkeley, L.

King of West Bromwich, L

Billingham, B.

Laird, L.

Blackstone, B.

Layard, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

[Teller]

Carter, L.[Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Chan, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Eatwell, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falkender, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Richard, L.

Gale, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rooker, L.

Goudie, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Grabiner, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sheldon, L.

Grocott, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Slim, V.

Harrison, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Healey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thornton, B

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyle, L.

Uddin, B.

319

Weatherill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Whitty, L.

Privy Seal)

Wilkins, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.22 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Registrable dispositions: registration requirements]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Unregistered interests which override registered dispositions]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Registration of adverse possessor]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 57, line 20, leave out "pursuance" and insert "pursuant"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 59, line 10, leave out paragraph 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the point I am making was, like some of the earlier ones, raised in Committee and again on Report. It was discussed again at a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, yesterday which I attended. I am afraid that that meeting convinced me more than ever that the Government had got this issue wrong. Mr Charles Harpum, the former Law Commissioner who was responsible for the Bill, is almost infallible on these issues. However, I believe that on this particular point even he, like Homer, has for once nodded.
Let us assume that the owner of a house—let us call him Mr X—has a garden at the bottom of which there is a patch of derelict land. It lies derelict for some time and Mr X thinks that it would make a nice addition to his garden. Therefore, he takes it over. He knows that it is not his but no one else claims it. He plants up the land and after a few years he thinks that it would be nice to own it.
Under the existing law, Mr X has the right to be registered as the owner of that formerly derelict land which he has incorporated into his garden if he has been in unchallenged adverse possession of it for 12 years. Under the existing law there is one exception to that situation; that is, where there is a trust of land. Under the present law that is quite appropriate as the person who owns the house to which the derelict land is properly attached may be a life beneficiary who perhaps does not even know that the land is his and does not want to do anything with it anyway and cannot be bothered to challenge the matter. Therefore, he takes no steps to end the adverse possession.
Equally, the trustees, who are the legal owners of the formerly derelict land, may well not know of adverse possession of the derelict land by Mr X as they have no reason to look at the land and find out whether anyone has trespassed on it. In those circumstances I can see
320
that it is unfair that a future beneficiary under the trust should lose the derelict land because of the failure of an earlier beneficiary to take action.
However, under the Bill, the situation has now changed. Under the Bill, if X wants to get on the register as owner of the derelict land, he must give notice to the trustees. But he gets on to the register only if they fail to take action within two years, so that there can be no adverse possession against land which is owned by trustees without the knowledge of the trustees and without giving them an opportunity to challenge the claim by the person in possession. However, if paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 stands, the adverse possession may be excluded for a period of 80 years or more as trusts can and do last a long time. Indeed, in the case of a few statutory entails, they may last for ever. There is no reason that I can see why adverse possession should be deferred for a very long time when the trustee must be given notice of any claim by the adverse possessor. If the trustees are given notice and do not respond, and if paragraph 12 is allowed to stand, a difficult situation will arise. Does the Land Registry have to investigate the evidence of the beneficial interests before admitting the trespasser, Mr X, to the register, or does Mr X get registered only to find that the registration is a mistake and it is rectified against him simply because the property is held on trust?
It was suggested in the discussion yesterday that the trustees might fail to oppose the application but might do so without being negligent or, alternatively, might be unable to pay damages to their beneficiary for failing to do their duty to oppose the application for registration. I do not believe that is an adequate excuse. There are extremely few cases where that will apply.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, recounted what might be described as a "sob story" based on a child beneficiary who lost out because his or her mother, who was also the trustee of the estate that owns the asset, suffered from a severe mental breakdown. However, I think we are agreed that that particular story will not help the situation as such circumstances would be covered perfectly adequately by paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 which prevents adverse possession being claimed against a legal owner who is under a disability.
Of course, adverse possession is not something to be encouraged, but I believe that paragraph 12 creates an unjustifiable anomaly. In the light of the change in the law of adverse possession in the Bill, which will perfectly properly make adverse possession more difficult to achieve, I can see no possible logical reason why the right to acquire title against the legal owner should depend on the nature of the beneficial interests on which a legal owner holds a property.
I should say in conclusion that those who are most likely to benefit from paragraph 12 are the owners of large landed estates, because it is they who most often find that the property is held in trusts. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is refreshing to see such unanimity between noble Lords opposite. We have already discussed the amendment extensively in Committee and on Report and I am very sorry that the noble Lord has not been persuaded, not least because of the strenuous efforts made by Mr Harpum, the Land Registry and the Bill team, as well as my meagre efforts on this issue. My powers of advocacy and theirs are not sufficiently great to persuade the noble Lord.
I regret to say that the Government have rather less sympathy with Mr X in the example than does the noble Lord. The aim of the Bill is to reduce the scope for deliberate land theft, which is what the noble Lord has described. The Government do not believe that it should be made easier than it is under the current law.
The Bill is a work of root and branch modernisation. The Government would not willingly pass up any opportunity to make the law simpler or more up to date, but we consider that the amendment would be unfair to beneficiaries who are not entitled to possession. The reasons are fully explained at cols. 1381–82 of Hansard of 30th October. I cannot usefully add anything to what I said last time, save to express regret that in my example I thought to say that the mother in that distressing situation was suffering from some disability. If she had not been, my example would have been impenetrable.
In the light of what I have said, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I egged the pudding in my example and, with the greatest respect, I think that the noble Lord may be engaging in the same today.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry that, even at the last gasp, I have been unable to persuade the Government to change their mind. I propose to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, not because I am in any way convinced that I was wrong, but for the reasons that I gave when speaking to the previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 20:
Page 73, line 21. at end insert ", and
(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
Page 77, line 33, at end insert ", and
322
(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
Page 78, line 39, at end insert ", and
(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
Page 79, line 11, at end insert ", and
(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the European Community and its Member States (The Cotonou Agreement)) Order 2001
4.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the European Community and its Member States (The Cotonou Agreement)) Order 2001, which was laid before this house on 15th October 2001, be approved.
The European Community, as the world's largest multilateral grant provider, the world's largest single market and the main trading partner of most developing countries, can potentially make a huge contribution to eradicating global poverty. In the past, the EC has not fulfilled that potential, but the new Cotonou agreement between the European Union and the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific—the ACP—is a landmark.
The EU's negotiating mandate for Cotonou was agreed during the British EU presidency in 1998. Negotiations with the ACP started in the same year and were concluded in 2000. Negotiations were hard, but the Government have been successful in ensuring that the Cotonou agreement is a good agreement for the ACP. The main points of the agreement are: an over-riding objective of poverty elimination; improved and simplified development assistance under the European Development Fund; good governance underpinning the new agreement and the possibility of taking action in cases of severe corruption; a new trade deal, which maximises ACP access to the EU market

323
while promoting those countries' gradual integration into the global economy; and, in exchange for these improvements, an ample replenishment of the EDF.
The trade aspects are important because, in many cases, the impact of the EU's trade relations exceeds that of its development assistance. Under Cotonou, the ACP's current preferential arrangements will be maintained until 2008, after which new WTO-compatible arrangements will come into effect. These will be free trade agreements between groups of ACP countries and the EU. However, to allow ACP countries time to adjust, fully reciprocal free trade would not be expected until up to 20 years from now.
One of the Government's main concerns in the negotiations was those countries that will not be able to join free trade areas in 2008. Here the Government secured two important objectives. First, least developed countries will benefit from the commitment to allow duty free access for essentially all their products. This has now been implemented with the "Everything But Arms" decision this year. Secondly, there is a safety net for other developing countries, with the EU undertaking to do what it can to provide a new, WTO-compatible trading framework with benefits equivalent to Lomé.
While the improvements to the Community's development assistance under Cotonou are welcome, they need to be accompanied by substantial reform. The Commission has started to tackle many of the institutional weaknesses of the past. Since Cotonou was signed last year some important improvements have been made. The challenge now is to ensure that the reforms are fully implemented, while also continuing to press for wider positive change.
Together with the Commission reforms, Cotonou is an important step towards ensuring that the European Community can meet its potential contribution to the millennium development goals. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House some estimate of the costs to the various Community secretariats that are bound at some stage to be involved in taking further legal advice, establishing a budget line and determining how the expenditure should be apportioned? It would be most helpful if we could be satisfied that all those precautions have been taken care of and that any transactions that arise from it are thoroughly transparent, not buried away in some obscure section of the European budget, which very few people read.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order before the House today. We on these Benches welcome the principle of extending the Lomé Convention to the Cotonou agreement and have no serious concerns about the content of the order. Much of its content is to be welcomed.
324
We are delighted, too, to hear the Minister acknowledge that a great deal of work still needs to be done to reform the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. This is all the more important as we come to the legislation regarding the enlargement of the European Union. We have pressed for such work for a long time, and we hope that the Government will make greater efforts to speed up the necessary reforms.
We have one or two specific worries on which I wonder whether the Government could comment. I am pleased that the Minister applauded the incorporation in the agreement of anti-corruption measures given that, despite our repeated efforts on these Benches, the Government have consistently failed to incorporate such measures into the International Development Bill. Could the Minister comment on the inconsistency between the praise for Article 33(2), which states,
"The Parties shall work together in the fight against bribery and corruption in all their societies",
and the Government's consistent refusal to accept our amendments to the International Development Bill to introduce anti-corruption provisions? Perhaps it will be incorporated when the Bill goes through the other place. I wonder whether that is possible.
The decisions that the Doha World Trade Organisation meeting will take later this week will have profound implications for the well-being of the poorest people on earth. Trade is the engine of economic growth. Cotonou on its own is not enough. We need to reduce trade barriers. It is often said that both the European Union and the United States are the main stumbling blocks; the United States with their anti-dumping laws and the European Union with their environmental demands. Both are detrimental for the developing countries. Many even call it protectionism through the back door.
One of the main ways out of poverty, however, for these countries still remains—and I repeat it yet again—and that is to give the children a chance of better education.
As regards the effect of trading arrangements on the least developed countries—the Government's "Everything But Arms" initiative had advanced the timing of certain proposals—is the Minister aware that the proposals have caused enormous concern in relation to sugar, particularly in the least developed countries of the Caribbean? Many of the proposals which the Government intended to agree to could destroy the economies of several Caribbean islands.
I do not want my comments to be interpreted as an overall criticism of this worthwhile agreement. The very important work of my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey on Lomé some 10 years ago, needs to be updated, especially as one-third of our aid to these areas is through the European Union.
There has been a great deal of cross-party agreement on the need to improve relations between the European Union and the ACP countries. We hope that the work will continue. As long as our concerns for the reforms of the CAP and the CFP are taken into

325
account and the needs of Caribbean countries in relation to sugar and issues such as the recent problem with bananas, which the Minister mentioned in the other place, the agreement should provide a worthwhile framework for future relations. We therefore support this order.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we also support this order and welcome the focus of Cotonou on the alleviation and elimination of poverty. A great many of the issues which have been raise by Cotonou will be directly affected by what takes place at Doha. One area which is causing some degree of concern has been mentioned in the press. It is that developing countries believe that they are being excluded from some of the decision making that is taking place. They believe that the developing countries are forming a club which will further the position of the developed world rather than that of the developing countries.
I have one question concerning the order. Have the Government looked closely at how to develop one of the issues raised by Cotonou, which is the non-state sectors, and have the Government thought about how NGOs, for example, can be included in future negotiations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for their support for this order. I believe that the focus on poverty in the Cotonou Agreement is particularly important. I shall try to address each of the questions raised in turn.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington asked about cost estimates. I can assure him that Cotonou is not funded from the budget, but it will be administered using normal Commission procedures and capacities. In that regard I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to learn that we have been working very hard to improve the procedures in respect of EU aid. A streamlined implementation structure has been established in Brussels. But completing the reorganisation overseas will take several years. We have also been looking at management systems and procedures which have begun to improve. For example, a new framework for country strategies and simplified procurement procedures have been put in place. I know that my noble friend is often very concerned about bureaucracy within Brussels.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked me in particular about corruption. That matter was raised in our discussions on the International Development Bill and again yesterday in another place at the Bill's Second Reading. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development said, in response to a question from the Opposition,
"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 [on corruption] in doubt".—[Official Report, Commons,7/11/01; col. 288.]
That remains our position.
326
The noble Baroness also asked about the CAP. I confirm that the Government are working to secure fundamental reform of that policy so that it moves away from subsidies which encourage excessive production and towards those that support rural development and the environment. It is especially important for the development objectives of the United Kingdom that reform is achieved as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness also asked about the "Everything But Arms" initiative. The Government believe that that is important to help the world's poorest countries. But we also recognise that non-LDC ACP countries will need to adjust to the change, as the noble Baroness so rightly said, particularly in their production of sugar and rice. We shall work to ensure that the multilateral and other bilateral donors assist with the costs of adjustment including through the Cotonou arrangements.
As regards the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, and the WTO, we continue to believe that the launch of a new multilateral round would result in significant benefits for developing countries. The noble Lord may be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a package of £20 million in assistance to developing countries to help them to use the round to negotiate effectively as part of our commitment to the development round. We are working very hard to improve the participation of LDCs in the WTO through our capacity building projects.
The final question from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, concerned the role of non-state actors. As the noble Lord said, the new agreement provides an enhanced role for non-state actors. They should be consulted on the EC's country support strategies and involved in their implementation. They should also receive capacity-building support. We are committed to ensuring that that happens, because it is vital if non-state actors from the ACP who represent all of society are to play a full role.
I hope that, with those explanations, we may proceed with the order. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Jobcentres Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001
4.51 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the regulations (S.I. 2001/3210) laid before the House on 26th September and to lay amended regulations which insert the words "or death bed" after the word "funeral" in Regulation 13(h).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there are two Motions on the Order Paper—one Motion to resolve and one Prayer to annul the regulations. I hasten to reassure the House that I propose to make only one speech—unless the Minister positively wants more.
E.M. Forster was quite right: it is the tragedy of life that one gets what one wants. However, for the moment, I propose to make only one speech.
The regulations introduce compulsory work-focused interviews for those who claim incapacity benefit and several other medical-related benefits. I shall deal first with the Motion, because it deals with a limited point and is simple and, I hope, clear. It addresses regulation 13(h). That regulation sets out what shall be taken as good cause for not attending a work-focused interview. Properly, the regulations provide for attending a funeral being good cause for not attending an interview. I propose to add, after funeral, the words "or death bed".
That is not a fanciful example; it is based on an actual case discovered by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and included in its report, "Benefits and Work", published by Janet Albeson in 1997. The case concerned a woman whose husband was dying of a brain haemorrhage. She spent a week in hospital attending his death bed and was deprived of jobseeker's allowance on the grounds that she was not actively seeking work because she had not made a job application during that period. I am not especially surprised that she had not.
I do not believe that that was the intention behind the legislation. I do not believe that it is the intention of this Government. I do not believe that it was the intention of their predecessors, Mr Portillo and Mr Lilley, who introduced the Jobseekers Act 1995. I am open to correction, but I believe that that is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In that case, it led to a particularly harsh application, which I hope will not happen again.
When the report was published, the case was still subject to appeal. I have not been able to discover what happened since, but, as the Minister well knows, one loses benefit pending appeal. As one cannot hang one's stomach on a sky-hook, one suffers considerable hardship in the meantime. This is a case in which the Government could, without any loss of face—without even any change in policy—clarify their intention so as to avoid such hardship in future.
If the present trend towards ever more secondary legislation continues, it will be necessary to deal with the question of how we deal with the one regulation that is not right among a group of others that are. The Motion is non-fatal: were it to be carried in a Division, it would not force the Government to do anything. However, I hope that the Government see fit to take the opportunity, which I offer them, to change something that has produced an injustice that I am convinced that they did not intend.
The regulations give rise to wider issues. They have a good objective: to help people with disabilities into work where there is work that suits them. That objective is shared in all quarters of the House, but the Government are pursuing it with a wrong diagnosis and inappropriate means.
Discussing these regulations in another place, Mr. Alistair Darling said:
328
"The total case load of incapacity benefit is far too high".— [Official Report, Commons, 25/10/01; col. 473.]
I have given the Minister's office notice—slightly belatedly, for which I apologise—that I should like to know: what is Mr. Darling's evidence for that proposition? As far as I can see, that is a matter of hypothesis.
I suspect that the answer I shall receive will be, once again, a reference to how many people were referred to incapacity benefit before the 1995 Act. If I receive that answer, first, that is a long time ago. Many of those people may not now be of working age.
Secondly—this is important for the whole of our discussion—we need to understand that the link between illness and unemployment is two way. Unemployment may well lead to illness as well as being a consequence of illness. That is fairly well universally medically accepted. It was originally proposed by the Black report and sustained by the Acheson report and a detailed analysis of unemployment and illness by constituency. The fact that constituencies with the highest unemployment have the most incapacity benefit may be perfectly well be evidence that despair is not good for health.
We are all familiar with the phenomenon of an animal that pines when given no hope. I am not certain that human beings can claim to be any different. If the Secretary of State has any good reason for knowing something different, I should like to know it. The Secretary of State talks about history lessons, and says that if we are to have history lessons, let them be complete. I agree. The medical evidence should be included in that.
The regulations will have the wrong effect: they will not get more people into work; they will not help people find work that they can do. If we consider what has happened under ONE—what used, in far-off days, to be called the single gateway—those who have attended compulsory interviews are less likely to be in work than those who have not. That is the finding of the Department of Social Security's research report No. 126. The department comments that that finding is not easy to explain. I hope that I can help. The finding is confirmed by the new deal for lone parents: again, those who have attended the compulsory interview are less likely to be in work than those who have not. We are dealing here with the effect of fear, which is a genuine medical phenomenon.
Several conditions that result in people receiving incapacity benefit are objectively exacerbated by fear. Mental illness is frequently one; back pain is another; asthma is a third and irritable bowel and similar disorders are a fourth. If we make people frightened—we underestimate at our peril the extent to which contact with a bureaucracy bearing a big stick is likely to frighten claimants—we may worsen their health. Getting people with medical disadvantages to do what they are capable of doing depends heavily on making them feel safe.
A long time ago, when my wife had had an operation on her knee, she was on crutches for two weeks. On the day on which she came off crutches, the

329
hospital tested her, and asked her to walk along a straight line. The staff put on an expression of great alarm and said, "Something's wrong. You're not limping". When challenged, they explained that almost everyone who came off crutches limped out of habit because they were afraid of the risk of doing otherwise. That was a case where fear was not present. If we want to get more people with disabilities into work, we need to produce more cases such as that where fear is not present. In my opinion, compulsory interviews are approaching the matter in exactly the wrong way.
The Minister will say, quite rightly, that home visits are available for those who find difficulty in going to a place to be tested. However, I agree with the remark made by Mrs Browning in another place that for many people, especially elderly people, home visits may be traumatic. In fact, my wife is dealing with one such case at the moment. It concerns a lady who will not let anyone into her house because she is not fit to clean it, and she dare not let anyone see what has happened to the house as a result. Consequently, all attempts at help must take place by telephone and that produces a great deal of extra work. I do not believe that that case is unique.
The second reason why I believe that this is a mistaken approach is that it is a mistaken test. The Minister knows that the test for incapacity benefit works so badly that more people who are found unfit for work than are found fit for work actually obtain work. NACAB's report on the matter, An Unfit Test, is entirely to the point.
When the test is conducted by the Government—that is, by the Benefits Agency Medical Service—rather than by the applicant's own doctor, there is a genuine possibility that there will be a conflict of interest. Before the Minister denies that, I shall ask her whether she can give me a categoric assurance that those who conduct the tests will not be subject to any targets whatever as to the number of people whom they find unfit for benefit and therefore fit for work.
There are also considerable administrative problems in relation to the conduct of the test. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, was going to draw attention to that last Tuesday but he had other fish to fry. I know that the noble Lord has many fish to fry, but I hope that he will return to that fish because it needs frying. A great deal of trouble is caused in trying to carry out tests to a time limit. A great deal of trouble is also caused by doctors demanding fees for medical opinion from people on benefits. Those matters need to be put right before any more is done.
In addition, are there jobs for those who are threatened with loss of benefit? Some of them do not get jobs because they face systematic discrimination. Others do not get them because, just as there are lands which God forgot, so there are lands which Mammon forgot. A good many of the people who claim incapacity benefit live in those lands. Mr Dennis Skinner in another place said—I paraphrase—that these provisions may work in some places but it is impossible to make them work here. That applies to
330
many of the cases in which most people are on incapacity benefit. It brings us back to the link between unemployment and illness.
I turn to my final point. Since yesterday, secondary legislation has become even more topical than usual. We are threatened with the possibility of being able to delay such legislation only for three months. But the trouble is that, if that comes about, the Government will be put under a constant temptation to bring in more and more provisions by secondary rather than by primary legislation. Originally we expected these regulations to be dealt with by primary legislation, but that did not happen. There is no clear dividing line about what is fit for secondary and what is fit for primary legislation.
Nothing that I say should for one moment be taken to indicate any softening of my Benches' hostility to this proposal or of our determination to fight it to the very last gasp. However, should it go through under the Parliament Act, we would need as a companion to it legislation along the lines of the Donoughmore report of 1932, setting out limits as to what can be done by secondary legislation and what must require primary legislation. Whenever those limits are brought in, they must include depriving people of benefit.
I am opposed to capital punishment. It is my opinion that depriving people totally of the means of subsistence is capable of becoming a form of capital punishment by the back door. I know that the Minister regards that opinion as hysterical, absurd and erroneous. It is possible that she is right. When she gives me one scrap of evidence in favour of her view to that effect, I shall give it every possible consideration. She has not yet done so. Meanwhile, I believe that we are facing a situation in which the power of secondary legislation is increasing, has increased and should be diminished. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the regulations (S.I. 2001/ 3210) laid before the House on 26th September and to lay amended regulations which insert the words "or death bed" after the word "funeral" in Regulation 13(h).—(Earl Russell.)
5 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I begin by taking up the point made by the noble Earl in his concluding remarks. In the Queen's Speech in June, the Government pledged to introduce a Bill to tighten up the rules for claimants of disability benefit. At that time, we were told that the benefit would be paid only for fixed periods and that we should expect a big increase in the number of medical tests. But, of course, we were expecting the matter to be dealt with in a Bill. Indeed, it was clear from what the Minister said back in July that she expected these matters to appear in a Bill. Of course, such a Bill would have been amendable and debatable in considerable detail.
Instead of that, the matter before us is in the form of regulations. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, if the proposals put forward by the Government yesterday in relation to reforming your Lordships' House were to be carried out, we should no longer

331
have the right to vote against secondary legislation; we should have only the power of delay. Personally, I regard that as a most serious matter. However, that is not the situation now.
None the less, we on this side of the House have been very restrained in the extent to which we have voted against statutory instruments. Indeed, as the noble Baroness says, so was the party opposite when it was in opposition. It seems quite extraordinary that the Government should now come forward with this proposal when, in fact, the present measure is used only on matters of the very greatest importance.
The situation surrounding the regulations that we are debating is somewhat strange. As I said, they were originally mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Subsequently, on 4th July, at a breakfast meeting the Secretary of State made a number of proposals which I believe suggested—certainly the spin which was reflected in the press suggested—that there would somehow be a crackdown on people who were obtaining disability benefit but had not been tested adequately to ensure that they were still entitled to that benefit.
That caused a considerable and understandable uproar among many people concerned with these issues. The Prime Minister bowled in on the same afternoon in support of his Secretary of State, saying,
"the proposals made today on incapacity benefit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are entirely sensible and justified. It cannot be right that we have a situation in which people coming on to incapacity benefit will be paid on average about £4,000 a year for, say, 10, 15 or 20 years, with no one ever checking whether they have recovered from their injuries and are able to work".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/01; col. 254.]
In contrast, the noble Baroness, speaking, I believe, on the same day, pointed out that there was no question of MoT tests being introduced and that incapacity benefit claimants already underwent a review process. Some faced checks after six months. I hope that the noble Baroness has drawn her remarks to the attention of the Prime Minister because I do not believe that the furore which he and the Secretary of State caused reflected the reality of the situation. As I understand it, and as the noble Baroness pointed out, the situation is that a fairly regular series of checks have been carried out so far as concerns entitlement to benefit. The matter then moved on and the Government, having decided on a crackdown, engaged in a series of climb-downs. My sound bite was not intentional. All the best sound bites are spontaneous.
In a memorandum, the Secretary of State said that the regulations would not change the categories exempt from medical testing and would not result in claims being time-limited. So we moved to a situation where there would be a Bill covering these regulations. In July, we were then told that there would not be a Bill, it would be in regulations, in September that there would not be a fixed period and in October that there would be no additional medical tests. All we were left with was the compulsory work-focused interview that we are discussing today.
332
I ask the noble Baroness what else will be in the welfare Bill in the circumstances I have described, or is there yet to be a welfare Bill of the kind mentioned in the Queen's Speech?
The noble Earl raised important points concerning the detail of these regulations which, as the House knows, are not amendable. The noble Earl was particularly concerned in his other Motion—being debated with the main Motion—that the words "on death bed" should be inserted after the word "funeral". It should perhaps be the other way around. The good cause provision (regulation 13) sets out a range of issues to be taken into account in determining whether a person has shown good cause for failure to attend an interview. This is important because if they fail to show good cause, they will suffer considerable penalties. While the prelude to this clause says these are the things which should be included in the considerations, inevitably it will be the case that those operating the system will look down the list and say, "You don't qualify because you're not on the list".
The Minister should make it clear to people operating this system that this list is not exclusive. It is possible to have other reasons why a person may be unable to attend an interview and there may be good cause why they are unable to do so. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the department's officials will be clear that this list in the regulations will not to be treated as the only reasons why good cause can be shown.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very happy to give that assurance. It is exemplary rather than fully inclusive.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful that the Minister will ensure that clear information is passed to those operating the regulations in what can be a fraught occasion for the applicant.
I come to the matter of penalties. These are considerable. If the person fails to turn up, a sanction will be imposed such as the withdrawal of income support, incapacity benefit and, to my astonishment, in regulation 11, bereavement benefit. Is it really proposed that, if someone fails to turn up for a job interview, they will have a bereavement benefit sanction imposed? That is a very strange proposition.
Before I turn to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, could the Minister confirm a statement made on 5th of July by Mr Robin Cook in another place, that the situation now being envisaged will not affect existing claimants?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance—but not from a sedentary position.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, thank you. The Minister's speech gets shorter by the minute.

333
Finally, I turn to the lessons which can be derived from the ONE operation, originally known as the single gateway arrangement. The DSS' own report on the first effects seem to be disappointing. Only a minority of lone parents or sick and disabled clients opted to take part in the operation. In the pilot areas, respondents in the sick or disabled groups who had not taken part in ONE were more likely to be in work than participants. As the noble Earl pointed out, this finding is hard to explain. Perhaps they took part in the interview rather than finding employment.
There are no changes in the attitude or behaviour of those already in part-time work. Personal advisers were able to change a few participants' attitude but this was an exception to the many who did not feel work was an option. I will not read out all the results—noble Lords will know of them—but it does seem to suggest that this is a disappointing result and raises the question of whether the compulsion set out in these regulations is justified by the results so far achieved.
One point is unclear to me. In Schedule 1, there is a long list of postcodes subject to these regulations, plus Shropshire County Council and Telford & Wrekin District Council. Does this fill a gap in a previous pilot or is this a pilot area? Why will some places be covered by the regulations and others not? I have much sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Earl. I am glad he has provided the House with an opportunity to debate these matters as my noble friend, Mr Willetts, did in another place.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has made some interesting points to which, no doubt, my noble friend will respond.
I do not know what the Minister thought of the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but he hit a large number of targets very accurately. I look forward to the Minister's reply. Some of the questions he posed were very relevant. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Government's attempts to help disabled people to find work. Those able and willing to work deserve employment.
The Government's aim is a laudable one but very flawed. The paramount question we need to answer this evening is whether the Government are going the right way about it. We need to look first at fraud. I hope that there is not a hidden agenda, because the Office for National Statistics said that fraud involving incapacity benefit is non-existent, so we can put fraud entirely to one side.
If that is the case, what do the Government hope to gain by compulsion? The intention is to compel severely disabled people to attend for interview. They are threatened that benefits will be cut or withdrawn if they do not attend. I cannot believe that that is the right way to go about business; to threaten and compel severely disabled people must be counterproductive. Will anyone find a job more quickly when they are under the Government's threat? I do not think so. Moreover, some people will be so frightened that they
334
will not attend the interview. That means that they will lose their benefits, which will have disastrous results for poor severely disabled people. I am horrified by the suggested compulsion and threats.
There is a popular misconception that many perhaps most—disabled people in wheelchairs want to work. That is far from being the case; and only 5 per cent of disabled people are in wheelchairs. I admire those who want and who seek work. However. as the noble Earl pointed out, many severely disabled people are not in wheelchairs. He referred to people with mental health problems and discussed various categories. I add to those categories: people with severe heart disease, those with multiple sclerosis and those with rheumatoid arthritis. Fancy bulldozing them into a situation in which they feel at bay and are forced to attend for an interview. Bringing people to the home does not solve the problem because having an official visitor at a person's home, especially if that person has mental health problems, can be a very traumatic experience. Either way—compelling people to go out or insisting that a visitor sees them at home—the situation can be terrifying for disabled people, especially those suffering from mental health problems.
Threatening those people to attend a compulsory interview involves a loss to everyone. It involves a loss to the disabled person, who will not necessarily take a job, and to the Government, who appear to be insensitive towards disabled people and to be brow-beating them. The objective is to help those people to get jobs. What is wrong with the voluntary system?
Why cannot disabled people be invited to discuss the situation—and perhaps apply after that—with people who can help, advise and guide them? In that respect, the Government have advanced a constructive proposal. I am sure that many disabled people will warmly welcome that. The purpose of the interviews is excellent and the Government should be commended on the arrangement. However, the compulsory element is simply unacceptable.
The Government's policy of exemptions—deferments and waivers—is not the answer because the situation is vague and indistinct. We do not know who gets waived. Who gets deferred? It is up to the local civil servants. If they are good people, that arrangement is fine and there will be no problem. But what if they are tough, intolerant or impatient people? The disabled person is in their hands. What the Government are going to do should be clearly in the public domain and the provisions should be mandatory. The Government should be frank and comprehensive in that regard. We need transparency of information in the public domain.
There is another serious flaw in the proposals. If and when disabled people go for an interview, there may, as the noble Earl indicated when he quoted Dennis Skinner, be no jobs. What will happen then? The Government imply that jobs are available, but we know full well that in many areas of the country there is significant unemployment. The area that I represented as a Member of Parliament—Stoke-on-Trent—had terrible black spots. One may force,

335
compel and bulldoze people to go for an interview, but there may on occasion be no jobs. That applies to many areas of Great Britain.
Lay-offs are being announced every five minutes in the media. One cannot pick up a newspaper without reading that a few thousand people are being laid off here and that a few thousand people are being laid off there. With today's cut of 0.5 per cent, the Government are aware of the growing problem of unemployment, and they are trying to stimulate the economy. However, they intend to go ahead with their proposals, which will bulldoze severely disabled people. I simply do not think that that is on.
I hope that my noble friend can persuade the Secretary of State, who is a very enlightened man, to stop this nonsense of compulsion and threats. We should be able to say that we have a fine scheme; if it is voluntary we can win in every way. If the Government want to disseminate information about the centres, they can do so in many ways because many means are at their disposal. They can use the very considerable disability network, which can contact millions of people. There is no problem telling people what the situation is or encouraging them to take part. If the Government do that, they will be well on the way to success.
If, despite the eloquence of the noble Earl and of others, the Government bulldoze the proposal through Parliament (they probably will) and if they find that it is a disaster (I think that it will be) I can only hope that they will reconsider. If they do so at the last ditch, that will again be of benefit to themselves and disabled people. That is my plea. However, it may be too much to ask the Minister not to go ahead with the proposal and to drop the compulsory element.
Lord Layard: My Lords, my first point is that the aim of the regulations is clear—it is to ensure that all disabled people and everyone else who is on the benefits know which jobs are open to them. Most of the people concerned are not severely disabled.
Secondly, no one will be forced to work. We should not muddy this issue with any other issue relating to tests; we are talking today not about tests but about the regulations. Their aim is simply to ensure that when people decide to claim benefit they make an informed choice about the alternatives that might be open to them. That seems to me to be eminent common sense. One could say in response to that argument that people should be free to choose whether to make an informed choice. In a sense, that is the issue that we need to discuss. I want to put two strong arguments in favour of the view that the proposed degree of compulsion is justified.
The first argument is that people easily become over-pessimistic. I should imagine that nearly all of us know disabled people who have been saved from despair by friends who prodded them to see the potential that was in them. It often takes an outside jolt to get people to see that things are not as bad as they seem. Such arguments, incidentally, have been equally
336
important in relation to the long-term unemployed, although we are not discussing that issue. We saw what effects efforts to mobilise the long-term unemployed have had on the level of long-term unemployment in this country. The first argument involves over-pessimism and the need for everyone to be well informed about reality.
The second argument is that taxpayers' money is involved and that there is no sensible reason why conditions should not be attached, especially when the main beneficiaries are the class of clients themselves. It is very easy to take a defeatist view of the labour market. It has been said today that it can never offer much to whole classes of people. We used to take that view about the unemployed. We—many apparently well-informed people—used to say terrible things; we said that we were moving into a world involving the end of work, and so on.
Instead, experience has shown that in those countries where serious efforts have been made to mobilise the unemployed, large falls in unemployment have occurred. That has been the experience in Denmark, Holland and Britain, while countries such as France and Germany, which have had a more defeatist attitude to such things and have not made these kinds of efforts to mobilise unemployed people and to confront them with the fact that the world has more possibilities than they may have thought, unemployment has been far more persistent. I believe that the time has come, in this country, to provide more help to the other groups that depend upon benefit, and that is the reason for the regulations.
I also understand that no major disability group is objecting to these proposals. Perhaps the Minister can confirm the precise situation. Except perhaps in relation to the very severely disabled, I ask myself who is objecting to what appears to be a reasonable proposal. I believe that it is those who view these groups purely as victims.
Fundamentally, this proposal is about a different view of life—a more complicated view. We must get away from the pure victim view of such groups of people. We must recognise that there is potential in many disabled people that they themselves may not have realised they had. We must also recognise that we are doing them a service by helping them to see what in them can be married to situations in the outside world. That is what these regulations are about, and it would be tragic if they did not come into force.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in response to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, I hope that he is aware that in referring to the potential of disabled people one must always discount the lucky and the brilliant.
5.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, as always, I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made this evening. However, I did not always recognise the regulations—I hope noble Lords will take this in the spirit in which it is intended—from some of the

337
speeches to which I have listened. As my noble friend Lord Layard suggested, I sometimes thought that noble Lords were suggesting that all we are doing is compelling disabled people into work.
Perhaps I should state what these regulations concern and what they do not concern. They are about, first, extending and providing equality of access to the support available to help people into work, people who previously have been routinely denied that access; secondly, routinely writing off from work the 4 million people who claim benefits that are covered by these regulations; thirdly, ensuring security for those who cannot work; fourthly, treating people as individuals; and, fifthly, improving the service for those who visit the new, integrated Jobcentre Plus offices.
My noble friend Lord Ashley is absolutely right that there is a belief that fraud is widespread. However, these regulations are not concerned with that; nor are they about changing the current medical testing arrangements; changing the current categories of cases exempt from medical testing; time-limiting benefits; or forcing people into work. I wholeheartedly believe, as my noble friend Lord Layard said, that they are about opportunity and not threat.
These regulations provide for everyone of working age, not just disabled people, who makes a new or a repeat claim to income support, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance and other benefits at a Jobcentre Plus office from 22nd October to take part, where appropriate, in work-focussed interviews at the start of their claim, and periodically throughout their claim, as a condition of claiming and receiving benefit.
We have always been clear that we must be sensitive to the different circumstances that people face. So there are provisions in these regulations to waive the interview where it would clearly be of no assistance; for example, when someone is very ill or severely disabled and has no prospect of being able to work.
However, people exempt from medical testing—they amount to 25 per cent of IB claimants—will not have their interviews waived automatically. People cope with disabilities differently, and these regulations are about treating people as individuals, not as members of a category. All disabled people are entitled to help, information, advice, opportunities associated with rehabilitation, training, work and benefits. Blind people, for example, are exempt from personal capability assessment. They are automatically passported on to IB and yet 51 per cent of blind people are in work. Equally, some people with substantial learning difficulties can be exempt, and yet 24 per cent of such people already work.
The noble Earl asked whether we were saying, as he appeared to indicate from the comments made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that the numbers on incapacity benefit were too high. My right honourable friend was not saying that people were wrongly coming onto the benefit. I repeat, as my noble friend Lord Ashley has said, that there is no evidence of fraud or impropriety, but I believe, as I am sure that
338
my right honourable friend believes, that people stay on incapacity benefit longer than should be the case and longer than they themselves want because no one intervenes to get them the help and support that they want and need. That is why the Disability Rights Commission tells us that around 1 million disabled people, on disability benefit, are interested in work and many feel that they could work, with the right support, but currently that is not available. That is what my right honourable friend would say.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was aware that that was her view of the matter. Can she give the House any evidence for believing that that view of the matter is the correct view?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would certainly expect the members of the Disability Rights Commission, who have made that statement, to have the kind of expertise that I do not have—I suspect that the noble Earl also does not have such expertise—but all the evidence that is coming through the commission and the Employers Forum on Disability, and like, appears to support that contention.
I am sure that the noble Earl will agree with this next point. Sickness, painful conditions and often mental health problems, rather than disability itself, are the main barriers to work. There is much evidence to show that disabled people, as my noble friend Lord Ashley has told the House on more than one occasion, particularly if they have an orthopaedic condition—not necessarily conditions associated with mental health or sickness—are often better attenders at work and more reliable performers in work than non-disabled people. Some of the sickness records of absences from work confirm that.
We know that many disabled people could work if they were given the relevant work aids. In addition, any decision to take up the help that is available is for the individual to make. It would remain entirely voluntary. Of course, in practice many people exempt from medical testing will also have their interviews waived because of the seriousness of their illness; for example, someone with a severe mental illness, which significantly affects moods or behaviour and restricts social interaction, or someone with a severely deteriorating illness.
The regulations also enable an interview to be postponed if it were not appropriate at the time; for example, when someone is distressed following a bereavement, at the death bed of a close relative or in hospital. Where it is appropriate for a person to attend an interview, it will normally take place at the local office. If that is inconvenient, it could take place at home. Taxi fares and so on will be made available and, of course, a friend may accompany a person to an interview or be present at an interview, as the letter makes clear. The letter is positive and helpful. I have copies here if any noble Lord would like to read it.
A person will be given three opportunities to attend an interview. Their benefit will be affected only if, after all those safeguards, they fail to show good cause for

339
non-attendance. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the list of good causes in regulation 13 is non-exhaustive—it is exemplary—as we cannot anticipate every eventuality.
In the case of someone who failed to attend an interview and did not contact the office to defer it because, as in the case that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave, he or she was with a close relative who may have been in a coma following a car accident, that would be accepted as good cause. Normally, I would expect a person to inform the office that they could not attend the interview, in which case it would be deferred to a time when they could attend. If they did not inform the office until after the event, it would count as good cause.
I regret the case mentioned by the noble Earl. That was one case in 1997. I read that report and did not find any other cases like that. It may be that it was an individual example of bad practice, which one sincerely regrets. Certainly, all the guidance and training of staff should ensure that such inappropriate behaviour does not continue. Based on our experience of one pilot and 15,000 cases, there have been only seven sanctions in the period April 2000 to September 2001. As noble Lords are aware, the sanction itself is very light.
Behind this debate is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Layard; namely, whether such interviews, which are information-based, not work-based, should be compulsory. My noble friend Lord Ashley pleaded with his usual eloquence that they should be voluntary. They already are voluntary and do not work. I am a convert on the subject. Like my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, five years ago I favoured only voluntary interviews because of the very language and images of threat that my noble friend deplored. I no longer believe that. I believe that people do not know what they do not know and we have a duty of empowerment.
Even John Stuart Mill—if I may bat this back to the noble Earl, Lord Russell—believed that compulsory education was a prerequisite for informed choice. The philosopher John Stuart Mill insisted that even in the most liberal states education was the prerequisite for choices to he made. For example, how many lone parents who are currently on income support know that if they go to work they will have a rollover of two weeks' benefit to help them bridge the gap? If they do not know that, of course they will be frightened to take risks; if they do, they are more confident when the time is right to enter work. I hope that the noble Earl shares my views.
The success of these changes depends on Jobcentre Plus staff, which is why we have increased staffing. Staff have had elaborate training. With the help of the disability organisations, particular attention has been paid to disability awareness training. I hope, therefore, that those who receive that advice accept that it is tailored to their needs.
I was asked about the schedule. The schedule identifies the 50 pathfinders and 39 work-focused offices in which the Benefits Agency and Employment
340
Service have been integrated to offer the kind of interviews that we want. As they roll out so the regulations will be amended. These regulations provide that everyone should have a work-focused interview at least every three years. They do not change the current medical testing arrangements, the category of exempt cases or the arrangements for deciding whether someone is entitled to benefit. They do not time-limit benefit or force people into work. They make sure that at least every three years people receive the help that they need, including incidentally checking that they receive the full range of benefits. If someone is interested in work or rehabilitation and training we have a duty to help them, not write them off.
We have opened the offices and are delivering a radically improved service. I have visited a couple of these superb offices. They are colourful, welcoming, comfortable and stylish. Small packets of biscuits and drinks are thrown in. Physically, they appear to be similar to the business section of some airport executive lounges that I have visited. I do not believe that that comparison is as wild as it may seem. I encourage noble Lords, including above all my noble friend, to visit them. They are the kinds of offices that I would wish every benefit claimant, client and customer to be able to experience. Nothing less than that is good enough. All of those offices are compliant with the DDA and have signing interpreters and material in Braille and audio-tape. Customers will be able to have appointments in one working day. One blind man was hugely complimentary about the new offices. He said that they had the most comfortable seats in which he had ever sat, and promptly fell asleep.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that these were fraught occasions. If he visits these offices and sees the rapport and relationship between staff and clients I do not believe that he will come away feeling that these are fraught occasions. They are positive, constructive, warm and helpful. People go away with the image of themselves and their capacity enhanced, which is what we want.
We know that the majority of lone parents want to work; they tell us so. We believe, and the DRC tells us, that up to 1 million disabled people want to work. We want them to have the best possible physical environment, training staff and knowledge to make choices and enter work as and when they are ready to do so. It is precisely because we value the skills and contribution of lone parents and disabled people that we want to empower them to come into work as and when they are ready to do so, with knowledge about their benefit entitlement, back-to-work support and the "best buy" calculation. As a result, they and we shall benefit. I commend the regulations to the House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply to my Motion. It does not give me everything for which I asked. I believe that it gives me everything which I could reasonably have expected, and I thank her very warmly for it. I also thank her for what she said just before she sat down

341
about using the interviews to make sure that everyone gets the benefits to which they are entitled. That gave me very great pleasure.
On the other hand, I believe that the Minister's quotation from John Stuart Mill was not very wisely chosen. In dealing with compulsion for education, Mill was discussing minors, and the kind of compulsion to which they may be subject has at all times been slightly different from that which is thought appropriate for adults.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl will realise that from 1870 onwards compulsory education was only up to the age of 12. Mill was writing at a time when there was no compulsory education even for children.
Earl Russell: My Lords, of course I realise that. I think that he was perfectly right in what he said. It does not follow, however, that one can deduce from it something which he did not say.
I listened to the Minister's description of these regulations and the argument about not writing off people. I entirely accept that that is the Minister's intention. But there is a considerable disjunction between the Minister's intention and the effect of the measures that she is defending. I have read innumerable speeches by kings and Ministers—indeed, more speeches than I have had hot dinners— in which they set out that their intentions were entirely beneficent and they did not mean any of the evil consequences which people saw behind what they said. Sometimes they were right and sometimes wrong; in almost all cases I believe that they were sincere, but the sincerity is not in itself proof of truth.
What these proposals do not understand is the extent of distrust of the bureaucratic machine felt among those who are, or have been, on benefit. They assume an awareness of their good intentions which is very definitely not there. If the Minister read something like the report of community care users on reactions to the benefits system she would find a large body of evidence for that proposal. I believe that that needs thought, because what is perceived is something other than the intention of the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall try not to intervene again. I agree with a good deal of the comments of the noble Earl about the service that historically has been offered particularly by the Benefits Agency. That was precisely why I was delighted to see the integration with the Employment Service and the whole shift in emphasis on training, service and physical environment in the new Jobcentre Plus offices which are wonderful. Go and see them, because that is where the future lies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful for those remarks. The Minister is doing her best, but if she is to be successful I believe that it will take 50 years. She must be realistic.
342
The noble Lord, Lord Layard. whose intervention added considerably to the debate, talked about the need for a friendly jolt and people being easily over-pessimistic. That is true on certain occasions. but one must establish a relationship of trust before one does it. I remember a peculiarly idle pupil at the end of the first year who was about to be sent down. I told him that he could get a first if he thought it was worth bothering. To the utter astonishment of my colleagues—blow me down—he did. But if I had not spent a long time in gaining his trust, I would not have been able to attempt to do what I did. I do not think that, even with all the benevolence that the Minister is offering, the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency and the jobcentres will establish that in the near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Layard, also had a good deal to say about labour market measures. He contrasted Denmark, Holland and Britain with France and Germany. There may be a good many other independent variables between those economies. I wonder about the question of coal. I know that there has been coal in Britain as well as in the other countries. But in the cases of Holland and Denmark, declining industries may in the past have been rather less prevalent. It is a question that we shall need to pursue outside the Chamber. But perhaps I may put on record that there may be more than one explanation of what the noble Lord has been saying.
The noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Ashley of Stoke, are about as perfect a cross-section of expert opinion as one could ask for. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his point about regulation 11 and the bereavement benefit. It reminds me of the remarks of my late noble friend Lady Seear on the original Jobseekers Act, from which all this flows. She said that it would lead to people being asked to go direct from the graveside to the jobcentre. We thought then that that was a flight of fancy. So did she. It seems that it was not. I am sorry to hear it. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, said everything he did, including a great deal that I wish I had said myself.
I am not in the least satisfied by any of the answers that I have been given. But the question of what happens to regulations is a long-term one which stretches far wider than this issue. But I shall say only this. We cannot run a Parliament without a degree of consensus on the way we should proceed. That consensus does not exist at present. I hope in future it will. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
5.52 p.m.
Earl Russellhad given notice of his intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 26th September, be annulled (S.I. 2001/ 3210).

343
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall not be moving the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2001
5.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th August be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if speak at the same time to the other three orders standing in my name: the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2001, which was laid before the House on 13th August 2001; the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was laid before the House on 26th September; and the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was also laid before the House on 26th September.
The political context is well known to your Lordships. The then First Minister, the right honourable David Trimble, resigned on 1st July. That created automatically a deadline of 12th August. On the afternoon of Friday 10th August the Secretary of State announced that he would be signing an order to suspend devolution from midnight that night. That order was the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2001, which is the first order standing in my name today. The Secretary of State then restored the devolved institutions after 24 hours by signing the second order.
The deadline was then reset for Saturday 22nd September. There were various developments and difficulties with which your Lordships are well familiar. The Secretary of State, after appropriate consultations, announced on 21st September that he was again bringing about a suspension by means of the third order. Devolution was restored 24 hours later by means of the fourth order.
That is the historical background to these orders. I have taken them briefly because it is self-evident that your Lordships know what has happened. More recently, as your Lordships know, Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan have been elected as First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The up-to-date material that I have is that the Reverend Dr Paisley returned to court this morning in Belfast and has been given leave to take out judicial review, but leave only on the basis that he has an arguable case. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th August be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we on these Benches understand the convoluted procedures which have been necessary to take the peace process forward. We support the Government.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, with these orders, let us hope that there will be an end to this kind of yo-yo politics. It was commendable that the Alliance Party took the decision to break the impasse. However, new arrangements must be made for the future to create a workable procedural arithmetic. We support the orders.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that last word. I entirely agree. The Secretary of State is bending his mind at the moment to new appropriate workable arrangements.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2001
5.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th August be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 26th September be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 26th September be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability
5.57 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to introduce a new Disability Bill.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that it is only 30 or 40 years since disabled people were treated as objects of pity and charity, denied rights and patronisingly treated as a regretful necessity.
Since then there have been major achievements with an array of benefits, the establishment of many rights and new public attitudes towards them. Above all, there is a strong sense of the developing independence of disabled people themselves, stemming, in large part, from these advances. I regard that as of tremendous importance.
The Government deserve great credit for the many measures they have taken to help disabled people, especially in the benefits field and in the setting up of the Disability Rights Task Force and the Disability Rights Commission. Under the chairmanship of Bert Massie, the commission has been a leading advocate of new legislation. Its parliamentary affairs manager, Agnes Fletcher, has been particularly helpful.
The changes in both provision and attitudes brought about by these achievements are now part of the fabric of our society. But, as we begin the new century, this is the time to stand back and appraise the extent of the advances and assess what more needs to be done. Key questions to be asked are: to what extent have disabled people got genuine independence; to what extent are they free from discrimination; how different are their opportunities compared with those for non-disabled people; have they got equal chances of a job with others; and, can they be confident that they will get fair treatment by society or is it subject to chance and luck?
In my view, the answers leave room for not one iota of doubt that a new disability Bill is necessary. The Labour manifesto's commitment in 1997 to introduce "comprehensive and enforceable" civil rights for disabled people was welcome and crucially important. But we should be clear about what that means. Comprehensive civil rights mean that all elements of living are provided for with no elements of chance. Enforcement means that disabled people get what is intended, and that, if necessary, they will get it by enforcement. To me, that means secure provision with disabled people being respected as equals with non-disabled people and having the same rights.
How far and to what extent are those reasonable interpretations operative today? Let us take the case of employment. Protection from discrimination in jobs depends on luck for many disabled people who want to work. It can depend on the size of the firm for which they work or want to work and on whether they are public sector employees. No less than 80 per cent of all small businesses, and 7 million workers, are excluded
346
from the current employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. That is astonishing, and there can be no serious excuse for it.
The Government have now decided to include all firms eventually, but not until 2004. Why the wait? This excessive delay means that many disabled people are still vulnerable to discrimination until then. So, there are no comprehensive and enforceable civil rights in that regard.
Employees in the public sector such as fire fighters and police and prison officers also do not benefit from comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. They are simply excluded from the DDA—full stop.
Even when disabled people get jobs, there is no guarantee that they can travel to them. Nondiscrimination provisions of the DDA do not apply to the means of transport. Disabled people can get on to the platform, but not on to the train. That has been called the trainspotters' charter—and with some justification, I think. Transport today is the Achilles' heel of disabled people in jobs. Some transport vehicles are covered under Part V of the DDA, which has not yet been implemented. Transport buildings fall under Part III of the Act, which expressly excludes vehicles. To compound that bizarre concoction, access to aeroplanes and ferries is not covered at all by the Act. It is a Fred Karno situation for many disabled people, in which 7 million people and 80 per cent of small firms are excluded.
If even small links are missing in the transport chain for disabled people, it is obvious that the journey cannot be completed. When elements as major as those that I have outlined are not in place, it is out of the question. This has major implications for jobs and independence.
Another example of the lucky dip principle is discrimination against people with HIV. Regrettably, there is discrimination against people who are diagnosed with HIV, but, incredibly, they are denied legal protection from discrimination under the provisions of the Act. It is designed especially to protect people, but, in respect of HIV sufferers, that protection comes only if and when they develop AIDS.
Some important rights for disabled people are to be found not in the DDA, but in the Human Rights Act. They include provisions ensuring that no one should be deprived of life intentionally and that no one should be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. The first provision could affect cases in which life support systems are turned off because of very severe impairment and in which disabled people may be denied life-saving treatment because of their disability.
As there is no commission to enforce the Human Rights Act (there should be one) powers should be given to the Disability Rights Commission to represent disabled people under the European Convention on Human Rights. After two and a half years' consideration, the Government have failed to act on that basis. Their feeble excuse that the Joint

347
Policy Committee on Human Rights is also considering the EOC and the CRA is unconvincing. There is absolutely no reason for the excessive delay.
Those issues and others should spur the Government to consolidate and expand anti-discrimination legislation for Britain's disabled people. No doubt some of that could be done through regulation, but rather than tinkering by making a patch here and there, we need the Government to introduce a comprehensive new disability Bill in the next Queen's Speech. They can thus set a pattern and an example that can be a beacon to all other countries.
I repeat that this Government have a fine record on disability and they should be congratulated on all that they have done, but if they introduce this new Bill—I very much hope that it will feature in the next Queen's Speech—it will be not only a beacon for other countries, but will effectively tackle historic discrimination here and enable disabled people to live fuller and happier lives.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it is right for the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to have tabled this Question, and also very timely. It follows my balloted debate on 4th July, whose subject was the Disability Discrimination Bill, which is now an Act.
In that debate I pointed out that that Bill was the first on disablement ever to have been drafted and introduced by any government. Previously, Private Member's Bills had had to suffice. Different parts of the DDA—I shall use that term to refer to the 1995 Act—have been taking effect at different times. The Act covers many times more subjects than could any Private Members' legislation. However, it did not cover all areas. For example, it did not complete what was required on transport and education. At that time, it would have taken much longer to have prepared legislation for those subjects. I am glad that the Act was not delayed in order to include them, as that would taken about five years. As a result of its introduction, many cases of discrimination in employment have been investigated since the relevant parts have taken effect.
There have been suggestions—the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, repeated them today—that amending legislation or introducing a new Bill could improve the definitions, in particular on HIV, and give increased responsibility to public authorities for promoting equal opportunities for disabled people. That would happen on the principle, which has been accepted, that it is within the bounds of what is reasonable. I remind the House that both British and United States legislation on this subject observes the principle of reasonable accommodations. That has worked well in this country so far.
The DDA made a huge step forward. It should be built upon now. Whether it is another Bill or subordinate legislation—statutory instruments or regulations—that is necessary, it is the Government who should initiate it. It is too difficult and uncertain
348
an operation to be carried out by Private Members' Bills or Private Peers' Bills, even with government support.
One asks whether the time has come for the removal of the exemptions that are written into the DDA. This is the opportunity to consider them. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has already referred to them. First, there is the exemption of small businesses. It is gradually being removed in stages and the process should be complete by 2004. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to hasten that process and to bring it forward?
Then there is the exemption for the Armed Forces. This is a subject on which I can speak from personal experience having been severely wounded and disabled in World War II in April 1945. I spent a year and two months in hospital—St Bartholomew's—which did a marvellous job in putting me together again. On the first anniversary of VE Day in 1946, I was still an inpatient in Bart's, although later that year I was allowed to emerge on crutches.
Partially disabled, I was allotted a task in intelligence in what was then the War Office—now, of course, it is the Ministry of Defence. I was still on crutches. I was employed there for only four months because I had been successful in the Foreign Office examination, and also successful in the Foreign Office medical examination, both of which I passed on crutches. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has heard me recall before, as I left the medical board the chairman said, "Of course, as a diplomat you will not be required to walk or stand"—which, curiously enough, was true at that time because we had only a few embassies and other missions abroad and they were all in salubrious capital cities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, they were lying on cushions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that for the first three years I had to work in the Foreign Office, where I worked personally with Mr Ernest Bevin, for whom I had a great admiration. Certainly I do not think that I was expected by him to lie on anything. I got to know him extremely well in the job that I was doing.
I spent 12 years in sedentary appointments arranged by the Foreign Office—mostly in London—and then I had to leave. My surgeons would not permit me to go to distant and insalubrious places.
In the distant past—and after a world war—the Armed Forces were able to find appropriate jobs for disabled people. I accept that it may be difficult now. The Army is much smaller and most soldiers have to be able to perform front-line duties. This has been confirmed by Field Marshals and others whom I have consulted.
Disabled soldiers may be a liability to their comrades beside them, certainly in World War II situations of the kind that I took part in—that is to say, major offensives, usually those of Field Marshal

349
Montgomery. It would certainly have been difficult for the advancing troops if one or some of them had been a liability to their comrades.
I turn now to the RAF and the Navy, in which there are one or two areas where it is possible for someone who is disabled to do a job—for example, to fly an aeroplane. Of course, usually in such cases they will have trained and obtained experience before they became disabled. A very good example, of course, is Douglas Bader, whom I knew quite well. He set an extremely good example to others, but, of course, he had earned his wings and learnt to fly before he became disabled.
I would encourage the placing of disabled people in suitable jobs—which I understand may be limited—in the Army. It is not possible for every soldier to be transferable to a front-line combat unit, and we should concentrate on those areas in the Army where someone who is not able bodied can do an office or other job.
I have spoken about the Armed Forces because they are an important exemption at present in the DDA. This is an area with which I am familiar. Very careful consideration would have to be given along the lines that I have outlined before the Armed Forces could be removed from the Act and no longer exempted. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has to say about the Government's intentions. In general I support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, talking about the DDA brings back memories. When we discussed it in this Chamber, I felt that we were taking the first step towards giving people real rights. It was a rather faltering step; it took a great deal of pushing to get it going. It faltered because the rights that it introduced were given out in a rather piecemeal way. They had to be fought for; we stumbled left and right; we left things out; we did not bound into the field.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, quite justifiably, that this Government have probably the best record on disability of any government. That is true. It is also true that the government before them were also the best in their turn, and probably the government before that. There has been a great deal of progress in the field of disability discrimination because of the pressure that has been applied for many years. We have become more educated.
The last time I spoke to the noble Baroness in her position on the Front Bench, I pointed out the number of areas in which I had spoken about disability. Her department is not the only one which is favoured by my dulcet tones. The noble Baroness's department has to carry the can for many of these issues, but disability affects everything. As has been mentioned, transport is one of the glaring omissions from the original Bill.
Rights have been introduced in a piecemeal way. Regulations have been brought in so slowly that people have forgotten about them and are now panicking. We started with the National Disability Council; then we went to the Disability Rights
350
Commission; now the commission has just about got going and suddenly finds it has huge amounts of work. Indeed, the work it is undertaking is generating more work.
Perhaps I may do something I rarely do and quote from a document I have received from the commission. It states:
"The Commission believes that a Disability Bill represents the best way of ensuring proper parliamentary consideration of complex but crucial issues—spanning the definition of disability, various exemptions contained with the Disability Discrimination Act…a public sector duty to promote equality parallel to that contained in the Race Relations Amendment Act and rights to protection from discrimination in transport".
That is what the commission is calling for.
Basically, we are in a mess. Even if cannot have a new Bill, we could certainly have a consolidation Bill. That would be a challenge both for the draftsmen and for joined-up government within Whitehall. Education meets transport meets works and pensions. Those departments could come together and talk.
The Bill itself was a good initial step but it was a product of its time. Time is now moving very fast. The Government did not really want to bring the Bill forward; they were frightened of its consequences.
There were scare stories everywhere—indeed, there still are—that it would cost millions, billions, for the alterations to various buildings; business would not be able to handle it. This meant, of course, that business had such a time-scale that it has not handled it. A little bit of pain up front is often worth it in the long run.
We have to get a coherent over-view. There are many ways of piggy-backing on other legislation. Indeed, many people consider that bringing all forms of discrimination together may be a way forward. But some people will say, "Possibly we have the same goal but we have different aims and objectives and a different client base". That is a valid argument, certainly at this time. But we have to try to bring these things together. The confusion and diversity of approach in terms of solutions holds back any consistent progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, cited the example of the Armed Forces. Again, in this area we must attempt to move with the times. A great many disabled people have served in the Armed Forces at times of national emergency. Over a long period dyslexic people have served quite happily in a variety of roles. That, for instance, would be covered. I apologise for referring again to dyslexia. I merely cite it as an example of how definitions will change over time. In a more technological age—during which time there has been a conviction that war can be fought like a game of "Space Invaders"—it may be possible for various branches of Her Majesty's Armed Forces to find an ongoing, continuous role.
Certain other exemptions—for example, the police force, the Fire Service and other emergency services—should be treated in the same way. If we have a better definition of "reasonable adjustment", or something along those lines, that will make sure that we do not have absurd exemptions, as happens at present. If we

351
have a good definition that works across the board, against which people can argue clearly, then we shall go forward.
We should remove some of the onus on individuals to bring cases and prove them in case law. We should try to move ahead. The noble Lord's suggestion is timely. Much can be done in this area. The first point is to attempt to bring the current legislation together into a coherent whole.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by making a point about the title of the department. For a Government who regard inclusivity as a major priority, it is rather strange that when the former departments of social security and employment were amalgamated the Government did not simply opt to call it the "Department of Social Security and Employment" rather than the Department for Work and Pensions. Clearly, the expression "work and pensions" excludes quite a number of interests. It excludes, for example, both the disabled—many of whom, alas, are not in work despite all our efforts—and pensioners. The change that arose in the title is strange.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for raising this issue. It is in many ways an extension of the debate that took place in July, initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell. In replying to that debate, the Minister was still under the impression that the matters that we discussed earlier today would be dealt with in a welfare Bill rather than by regulations. As the two debates are linked, perhaps I may ask the Minister which provisions mentioned in the Queen's Speech are contained in the welfare Bill. Given the priority that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, would like the Government to give to these matters concerning the disabled, if a welfare Bill is still to be presented to Parliament, is there now something of a cap for these matters to be covered?
In her final remarks, the noble Baroness said that the proposals made in the orders that we discussed earlier could be taken up by people when they were ready. She used the words "right and ready" or some such expression. My understanding is that people will not have that opportunity. They will not go for an interview or take up a job when they are ready; they will go when the department asks them to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested that the existing legislation on this subject might be included in a consolidation Bill. I am not quite clear what that would achieve. I know full well, having tried in another place to make a speech on a consolidation Bill that it is the most difficult thing in the world.
Lord Addington: My Lords, merely the exercise might show us what a mess we are in.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have a nasty feeling it would continue to show the mess that we are in. Anyone who has dealt with a consolidation Bill will realise that it is only a technical exercise.
352
However, the noble Lord made a good point in stressing the importance of co-ordination between different government departments. As he rightly says, a number of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in his opening remarks go across government departments. Clearly, the question of transport is relevant not only in the context of the disabled and the Department for Work and Pensions but also in the context of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That is important.
I come to this debate as a comparatively new boy. Other than on welfare Bills involving largely financial matters, I do not think that I have spoken on disability matters of the kind raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, this evening. On previous occasions they have been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, who has a great deal of expertise and interest in this area. I am sure that he will wish to speak on these matters on future occasions. I, however, come to this set of issues comparatively fresh.
To speak more personally, I looked today at the Disability Alliance's annual review for the year 2000–2001. The alliance stresses the extraordinary success—I think that is the right description—of the UK team in the Paralympic Games in Sydney. It points out that it is engaged in dealing with these matters in relation to UK sport, formerly with Sport England. It is a long time since I was an active athlete—something like half a century—but I well remember at that time organising athletic events for the disabled. Such events have remarkable importance so far as concerns their personal outlook on life. We should do everything possible to encourage disabled people in these endeavours, whether in the Paralympics or in small local events—or, for example, in the London Marathon, where I am usually astonished at the efforts of people in wheelchairs.
My reason for raising the point in this context—and it may possibly require legislation—is that the Disability Alliance points out that it gives advice to individual disabled athletes on the impact that lottery funding may have on their social security benefits. I have not given the Minister notice of this question. We need to consider carefully whether, if they are in receipt of lottery funding, it ought to have any impact on their social security benefits. I see that the noble Baroness is not sure. It is a point that we need to examine carefully. In the context of whether another disability Bill is necessary it is worth looking at.
The history of these matters goes back to the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in 1970 in another place. The noble Lord has made a big contribution in this area. It continues through the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 put forward by my right honourable friend Mr William Hague. Since then, there has been some disappointment regarding government progress in these matters—not least at the withdrawal of 12 charities from the Disability Benefits Forum, which I understand no longer exists. On the other hand, I pay tribute to the progress made by the Government with regard to the establishment of the Disability Rights Task Force and the

353
Disability Rights Commission. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply on the point that he raised with regard to representation by the commission. It is clearly doing a great deal of work in representing individuals at tribunals but not in relation to the Human Rights Act. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that point.
Outside organisations have raised a number of issues. There was disappointment that the response to points on transport has been that the Government are consulting. The Minister mentioned that they were consulting on the issue in July. Perhaps she could bring us up-to-date on progress and, more particularly, whether definitions of disability—for example, as regards cancer, or whatever it may be—are required.
The Minister suggested that blind people were automatically passported through the system. That seems in conflict with representations that I have received from the Royal National Institute for the Blind which believes that those individuals originally recognised as being blind need to go through a review every so often. Definition is important. On extensions to small firms, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out that 2004 seems a fairly lengthy period of adjustment for companies to provide for those who have disabilities at work.
It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could summarise the further steps which could be taken without legislation; those which could be taken through secondary legislation; and, finally, what plans the Government have for those areas which can be provided for only by primary legislation.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall do my best. As usual, the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley for providing the opportunity to debate this matter. Legislating to strengthen and improve the rights of disabled people is of prime importance. As noble Lords have acknowledged today, and without wishing to sound complacent, we have a record which is second to none of any country of which I am aware, with the possible exception of American civil rights legislation which has developed to some extent along a slightly different path.
We have already established a Disability Rights Commission. That is a significant step and one which was omitted from the Disability Discrimination Act. And we have started to put right other major omissions from the Disability Discrimination Act such as legislating in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 to bring within the scope of the DDA discrimination in the provision of education.
When talking about such steps, it may be appropriate to respond as far as I can to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about consolidation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Since the DDA was introduced in 1995 it has been amended significantly by only one other Act—the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Therefore it is too early to think about consolidating those two Bills.
354
We need, for example, to take forward our obligations under Article 13 relating to the employment directive. The noble Lord perhaps was suggesting that we seek to consolidate the interface with other departments—the Department of Health, and so on. Other legislation deals with a variety of issues which do not turn on whether discrimination has occurred. For example, the primary matter for the health service may be the extent of disability rather than discrimination and, therefore, the support which may need to be given as of right by local authorities. I do not think that it is appropriate to try to consolidate to that extent. However, I am sure the noble Lord is right that over the years consolidation will be needed. But at the end of the day employers and disabled people want helpful advice and guidance from the local offices—the CAB and such organisations—rather than legislation, which most of them will not read.
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 deals with education. In addition, from October 2004 the final phase of Part III of the DDA—it will require reasonable adjustments to physical features of premises where access is impossible or unreasonably difficult—will come into force. That will be supported by a revised code of practice which will be issued early next year.
These are important changes to the current framework but, on their own, they are not sufficient to meet our 1997 manifesto commitment to support comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. The language used today about the need to keep building on it is right. That is why we established an independent Disability Rights Task Force to advise us on how best to take forward our overall commitment to civil rights. In its 1999 report, From Exclusion to Inclusion, the task force made 156 wide-ranging recommendations. Some required the Government and other public bodies to make changes to the way in which administrative or other procedures are operated. Others required legislative action such as bringing education within the scope of the DDA; and, as I have mentioned, we have done that.
Towards Inclusion was our response to the task force. It was published on 5th March of this year and reports the progress we have made in a number of areas such as the provision of services, transport, the environment and housing, participation in public life, local government, health and social services.
Towards Inclusion—our response—also made specific proposals to legislate to help tackle social exclusion and address inequality in employment and access to goods and services which many disabled people still face. Some of the major proposals have been highlighted today. They included the ending of the exemption of small firms from the DDA's employment provisions in 2004; bringing within the scope of the DDA more occupations such as police officers, fire fighters, prison officers and barristers in chambers; introducing a new duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people; and extending the scope of the DDA's access provisions to functions carried out by public bodies

355
that are currently excluded because they are not "services" within the terms of the DDA—for example, custodial matters undertaken by the police.
These proposals will bring within the scope of the DDA a further 600,000 disabled workers and around 7 million employees. They will require public bodies to look proactively at promoting equality of opportunity in their employment policies and services to the public. And they will ensure that a wider range of functions carried out by public bodies are subject to antidiscrimination legislation.
My noble friend pressed me on one specific point and was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He asked our views about discrimination against people diagnosed with HIV who are, therefore, denied legal protection. My noble friend will know that people with symptomatic HIV are also covered by the DDA. He also raised the question of exemption from Part III for transport operators—that is, the right of access to goods, facilities, services and premises. I was shocked when a friend in a wheelchair, known to my noble friend and myself, was refused a meal on a train. He was told by the person involved that he was not obliged to serve him. I thought that that was quite shocking.
I repeat that we are committed to ending this exemption. We are consulting in the new year on how best this can be done. I hope that that will be good news for my noble friend and that we can bring forward our proposals as expeditiously as we can given the consultation in which we must clearly engage.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, does that involve primary legislation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am assured that it probably does. I should like to write to the noble Lord and to my noble friend. I have been struck by the degree to which quite significant improvements can be made by changes in regulation as opposed to legislation. I need to follow up in greater detail the interaction with that and the Article 13 directive. I am told that it will require primary legislation but I should like to see how much could still be done within our existing regulatory powers. If that would be helpful to the noble Lord, I should be happy to share that information with him.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, indeed, that would be most helpful and I should be most grateful if that could be done. If it requires primary legislation, will we still have a welfare Bill and could it be included in that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that an Employment Bill has been introduced in the Commons today and some of our welfare reform proposals will be included in that. But I cannot at this stage help the noble Lord further. I do not think, given the timetable of consultation whereby we are committed to consulting in the New Year, that any
356
legislative proposals could possibly be ready until next autumn. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the timing he suggested is not appropriate.
As regards the Article 13 directive which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for reasons I may understand, pressed me on, we have signed up to the European Employment Directive made under Article 13 of the EC Treaty. This will ensure that all member states protect disabled people against discrimination in employment and training. In the UK we already have such legislation though it needs some further changes, as I have said.
It is a unique and commendable achievement that the Disability Rights Task Force was able to pre-empt a great many of the directive's provisions. This helped us during negotiations and ensured that those aspects of the UK's approach which work so well—such as reasonable adjustments—could be retained.
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and to my noble friend that the Government intend to consult on the requirements of the directive within the next three months. Of course, this debate is concerned about whether or nor there will be a disability Bill to implement the Government's proposals. Clearly, it would be advantageous—I do not challenge that for a moment—to take forward our disability commitments, both those arising from Towards inclusion—our response to the task force—and anything further from the Article 13 directive, in a disability Bill. This would allow us to deal with everything we want to do in a single piece of legislation.
However, your Lordships will absolutely understand all of the caveats I am now going to make as some of your Lordships have been in a similar position of being under pressure of legislative time. The legislative timetable is always heavy. It is particularly so at the moment. I say that in all sincerity given the number of anti-terrorism Bills that we shall now have to introduce into the legislative programme. That makes the legislative programme even heavier than is normally the case. We cannot guarantee a legislative slot either now or in the near future for those reasons. Noble Lords will appreciate that that is not within my gift, nor that of my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People or even, I dare say, of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, even for measures to which we attach a high priority. The issue is not policy but parliamentary time. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot pre-empt that decision which will be taken considerably later, however sympathetic I may personally be to many of the proposals put forward today. However, noble Lords will be aware—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble friend has been helpful in the debate but is she now saying that disability will have a low priority, or is she saying that the Government will find other means of pursuing

357
these issues? Her comments are a little disturbing. I acknowledge the point about terrorism. Obviously, the anti-terrorism Bills take priority.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not saying either of those two things. I shall talk about the second matter in just a moment; that is, what can be achieved without legislation. I say simply that no one—apart possibly from the Prime Minister who is never "off message"—can predict or state at this stage what may be in the Queen's Speech. I am absolutely not saying what is or is not high priority, medium priority or low priority. I am absolutely not saying that disability is a low priority and, say, housing or health are high priority by comparison. What I am saying is that my noble friend will understand that security measures will always take a fast track. But that aside, I say nothing beyond the fact that no one can predict or make commitments about what will be in the legislative programme or the Queen's Speech any more than they can predict or guarantee what will be in the Budget. I say nothing more nor less. I hope that my noble friend will not seek to read anything beyond absolutely that in my comments today.
However, I may be able to take the House a little further forward as regards what we can do even in the mean time and even without a disability Bill. This is what we are considering. This Government are alert to the needs of disabled people and respect their desire to lead independent lives as equal members of society. It is a Government who support their right to be protected.
Under EC legislation we are able to introduce changes required by an instrument of the European Union by regulations. So, even if a Bill were not forthcoming—I am absolutely not saying that it will or will not be forthcoming—we could meet our commitment to legislate to end the small employer
358
exemption in 2004. We could also ensure that the occupations and employment currently exempted from the scope of the DDA, such as the police and firefighters, are ended. I cannot, and will not, make such a commitment as regards the Armed Forces. The Government's position on that is that it is for the MoD to determine what is in the best interests of national security. Your Lordships will understand that there is a debate about that. One of our difficulties is that many of the jobs which were traditionally available to disabled members of the Armed Forces have now gone out to civilian staff, which limits the capacity to make reasonable adjustments for members of staff. However, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ashley will understand that, as will the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. However, I believe that the ending of the exemptions for the police and fire-fighters—which, after all, involve considerable numbers of the civilian population—will be a welcome and rewarding change. As I say, we can achieve that change without primary legislation.
The DDA is significant legislation which provides significant protections but it is neither comprehensive at the moment nor fully enforceable. We have addressed, and continue to address, the Act's omissions. We are moving forward both domestically and in Europe to ensure that disabled people have in place the protection that has been afforded to other people in our society for the past 30 years. It is right that we press ahead with urgency but we also need to create lasting and effective legislation. And to make that legislation deliver we have to take people with us which is why the consultation process is an educative process as well as everything else. We shall do what is needed as soon as we can. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel that the debate tonight has been worthwhile.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before seven o'clock.

  Burma
  Burma
  Race Equality
  Race Equality
  Extradition: Death Penalty in the USA
  Extradition: Death Penalty in the USA
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Oakington Detention Centre
  Oakington Detention Centre
  Asylum: Unaccompanied Children
  Asylum: Unaccompanied Children
  Immigration: Specified Groups
  Immigration: Specified Groups
  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Armagh City Courthouse: Union Flag
  Armagh City Courthouse: Union Flag
  MoD Ranges: Security
  MoD Ranges: Security
  Belfast Agreement 1998
  Belfast Agreement 1998
  Nuclear Weapons: ICJ Ruling
  Nuclear Weapons: ICJ Ruling
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Companies Registration
  Companies Registration
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Research Council, 30 October
  Research Council, 30 October
  Foot and Mouth: Inquiries
  Foot and Mouth: Inquiries
  BSE: Confirmed Cases
  BSE: Confirmed Cases
  BSE: Tissue Samples
  BSE: Tissue Samples
  UN World Assembly on Ageing
  UN World Assembly on Ageing
  Profoundly Deaf People: Interpreters
  Profoundly Deaf People: Interpreters
  Heron Tower
  Heron Tower
  House of Lords: Management and Services
  House of Lords: Management and Services
  Armed Forces Personnel Serving Overseas: Taxation
  Armed Forces Personnel Serving Overseas: Taxation
  "Boom" and "Bust"
  "Boom" and "Bust"
  Privy Council Silver Collection
  Privy Council Silver Collection