Sitting of 14 November 2001

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

    Transport
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on transport in Wales.[12466]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Minister of the National Assembly regularly to discuss wide-ranging current issues affecting Wales, including transport. Transport generally is a matter for the National Assembly, although railways, air transport and ports remain, generally, the responsibility of central Government, working closely with the Assembly on matters affecting Wales. I am keen to continue dialogue with the Assembly and Cabinet colleagues to determine how best to meet the transport needs of Wales.
    Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Secretary of State agree with the director of the Confederation of British Industry of Wales, who said that we cannot continue to grow the economy at the speed that we would wish while 70 per cent. of the population is served by a two-lane motorway? What plans has the right hon. Gentleman to increase road capacity in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: As I said, the matter of roads is for the Assembly to consider. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the last spending review was an extremely good one for Wales. It meant that much more money could be spent on roads in Wales, including the £25 million that was announced only last week for all the local authorities in Wales.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: When my right hon. Friend meets the First Minister, will he raise the serious overcrowding on the bus service between Llandogo and Monmouth? Sixty to 70 children a day have to travel on a scheduled bus service run by Stagecoach, which refuses to put on an extra service unless it is paid for by the county council, even though it already receives two subsidies for
    842
    the service. Does he accept that the three-for-two rule allows unacceptable overcrowding for pupils under the age of 14?
    Mr. Murphy: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's campaign on the matter. I know that he raised it in an Adjournment debate in the House, and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is raising it with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales, Jane Davidson. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that local education authorities are obliged to provide transport that is non-stressful, because if it were stressful, it could interfere with children's education.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Can the Secretary of State tell the House why Railtrack is not progressing with the essential improvements to the Cambrian line and Cambrian coast railways, even though, as his colleague in the National Assembly must have told him, the Assembly is allocating a substantial sum to those improvements? Why are people in Wales getting such a bad deal from the Government over railways?
    Mr. Murphy: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the people of Wales got a bad deal from the previous Government when they privatised the railways. The Cambrian line upgrade has not been scrapped. The investment has been provided by the Assembly and the Strategic Rail Authority. It is scheduled for the period 2002 to 2006. Because Railtrack is in administration, it cannot make a decision about when the work will be carried out, but the investment will be forthcoming.
    Chris Ruane: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement by P & O that it will move its main Ireland ferry service from Liverpool to Mostyn docks and the part played by the National Assembly for Wales in that excellent move?
    Mr. Murphy: I certainly welcome the fact that the National Assembly put some £17 million into Mostyn docks. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly interested in those improvements to the economy of north-east Wales. Developments at Mostyn docks over the past few months and in the future will make an enormous difference to the economy of his constituency and to north Wales in general.

    Flooding
    Mr. Gregory Barker: What discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on measures to assist people who live in flood-prone areas within Wales. [12467]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and those discussions cover floods and related matters. I have had recent discussions with colleagues on flood defence matters. I also represent Wales on the rural taskforce.
    Mr. Barker: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that up to 120,000 homes along the Welsh coastline are still at risk from flooding if there is a repeat this winter

    843
    of last year's heavy rainfall? Furthermore, up to 50 per cent. of the families in those homes are unaware of that risk. Given that, will he admit that the paltry £14 million that has so far been made available to Welsh flood committees is totally inadequate? What plans has he to make further immediate provision?
    Mr. Touhig: The unprecedented flooding last October was the worst for half a century or more. My colleague Ministers in the National Assembly provided £6.5 million to local authorities to help clear-up operations and to make damaged services secure again. An additional £15 million is being made available to local authorities to carry out major repairs and improvements over the next four years. Last autumn's flooding provided a severe test of the flood warning arrangements, but they proved to be robust, having just been upgraded. The system did very well in the circumstances. Most importantly, not a single life was lost, and we are all thankful for that. Some 10,000 homes throughout England and Wales were affected by flooding, but as a result of good flood defence measures, 300,000 homes were protected.
    Mark Tami: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable work that is being done in my constituency to combat flooding? Flintshire county council in particular has made the issue a priority. However, does he agree that the need remains for greater co-operation between local authorities, water companies and the Environment Agency to deal with the matter effectively?
    Mr. Touhig: It is essential that there is very close co-operation between the statutory and local authorities. I am aware that there have been problems in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I believe that the measures that are being implemented and the funding that is being provided will help to overcome them. If he is concerned about a specific problem, I ask him to write to me about it, and 1 shall take it up on his behalf.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is the Minister aware of the despair, upset and sheer emotional distress that many home owners feel when their homes are flooded? Does he accept that his policy has so far been woefully inadequate? Is he aware that the Institution of Civil Engineers concluded last week that spending on flooding needed to be doubled and went on to describe Government policy in this area as piecemeal and short term? Ministers are fond of bleating about how advantageous our membership of the European Union is, so why will he not claim some of the money that is available from the European Union to member states for this purpose, thereby helping to alleviate—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Touhig: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his Front-Bench position. It is not for me to comment on the length of his questions, but he has certainly shortened the winter. I do not accept the view that the Government have not done a great deal to overcome the problems that we faced last year. There is a short-term programme of repairs and renewals to ensure that we avoid the problems this year. There is also a long-term programme of initiatives, which includes the
    844
    carrying out in England and Wales of a DEFRA-led flood defence review. My colleagues in the Assembly are taking part in that consultation and we expect to have the results by Christmas.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I remind the Minister that despite his assurances about the unusual floods that we had in October, the town of Ruthin has suffered severe floods twice since then? I witnessed them. Even the Welsh Local Government Association, which is friendly to him, says that £50 million of new money is required to put things right in Wales. So far, there has been £15 million, plus the £6 million. That is not even halfway, so will he please redouble his efforts and ensure that we protect these societies and the people in them?
    Mr. Touhig: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. It is in all our interests to help communities such as Ruthin, which were blighted by the events of last October. 1 believe that the Assembly is working very progressively with local authorities. As I said, it has provided £15 million to fund schemes for the next four years. I think that that will make an important contribution. There is never enough money to do all the work because there is always a problem: when the crisis is staunched in one area, problems can arise in another. I believe that the discussions between my friends in the Assembly and local authorities mean that steps are being made in the right direction. We will do everything that we can to ensure that if there are difficulties this winter, we have the resources in place to overcome them.
    Lembit Öpik: The Minister will know that many rivers have their sources in Powys, including the Usk, the Severn and the Wye. Is he aware that, a couple of years ago, the Secretary of State for Wales and I held a meeting with the Environment Agency to reduce water levels in the Clywedog dam and thus reduce the risk of overflow at peak times? That reduced flooding. Is he willing to facilitate further such meetings to extend that successful scheme to other reservoirs in the interests of reducing flooding both in Wales and in parts of England?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I would be most willing to use my services to facilitate such a meeting.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the effects of devolution on the administration of the Dee estuary.[12468]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): As my hon. Friend and I discussed when we met recently to consider the Dee estuary, its administration raises interesting and unique cross-border management issues, which I shall raise with my ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that have been taken so far. Does he agree that, following devolution, cross-border, environmentally sensitive matters merit special consideration, which might

    845
    extend to core funding for the estuary strategy and better co-operation between the environment and development agencies in England and Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more. I have raised the matter with the First Minister and the Minister for the Environment in the Assembly. I agree that there should be good co-operation between the environment agencies and, as my hon. Friend said, the development agencies. I shall keep in touch with him, and I hope to visit the estuary soon.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. Will he discuss with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is responsible for fisheries, the exploitation of mollusc beds in the Dee estuary by unlicensed people? That activity is to the great detriment of the Inland Revenue and is environmentally degrading an important stock.
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I shall do that. When I discussed the matter with my hon. Friend some weeks ago, he mentioned the cockle beds in the Dee estuary. It is important for both environment agencies to tackle the problem. I assure him that I shall discuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    Crime
    Mr. John Smith: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [12470]
    Mr. Dai Havard: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales.[12472]
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales.[12473]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales(Mr. Don Touhig): The Government's partnership approach to fighting crime is making a significant difference in communities throughout Wales. With funding running into millions of pounds, local crime and disorder reduction partnerships are implementing projects targeted at crime hotspots, domestic violence and drug-related crime. Much of the funding is being channelled specifically into the most deprived communities and is going a long way towards building safer and more inclusive communities.
    Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend know that recorded crimes in the Vale of Glamorgan division of the South Wales police area have decreased from 15,000 a year in 1995 to 10,000 a year? That has transformed towns such as Barry, including the seaside resort of Barry Island, from being among the most crime-ridden
    846
    communities to being among the safest in the country. Will he join me in paying tribute to Superintendent Colin Jones and his officers for that magnificent achievement?
    Hon. Members: Answer
    Mr. Touhig: Tough one that.
    Burglaries in the Vale of Glamorgan police division have fallen by 31 per cent. in the past year. A similar reduction has occurred in the theft of motor vehicles, and there has been a reduction of 19 per cent. in thefts from vehicles. That is down to good policing and providing resources, to which the Government are committed. I congratulate Superintendent Colin Jones on the way in which he leads his force in the Vale of Glamorgan police division. I understand that the Prime Minister congratulated him in No. 10 Downing street.
    Mr. Havard: Does my right hon. Friend know that the change to deprivation funding by the Youth Justice Board means a significant increase in the money available for its valuable and successful work in my constituency? The community intelligence-led approach to policing in Merthyr Tydfil and the safer Merthyr homes scheme have received United Kingdom recognition. The community warden scheme is being extended to other parts of the UK. What plans does he have to work with other Departments, the National Assembly for Wales and all relevant agencies to ensure sustained funding for the successful initiatives that have done so much to decrease crime rates and improve safety in my constituency?
    Mr. Touhig: Since my appointment to this office in June, I have made three visits to my hon. Friend's constituency, and I have been impressed by the range of initiatives aimed at building stronger communities. I am aware of the well established neighbourhood and warden schemes in Pen-y-darren and Bedlinog, which offer good examples of what can be achieved with communities working together. I also welcome the award of £70,000 earlier this year under the crime reduction programme. I understand that the community warden scheme to which he referred has been extended into Dowlais ward, and significant progress has already been made in building a stronger and better community as a result.
    Mr. David: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Will he give the House more specific information about the measures that the police in Wales are likely to introduce to reduce antisocial behaviour?
    Mr. Touhig: Like most hon. Members, I represent communities that have been blighted by problems of antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend and I share the same borough and police division, and I can tell him that the Government have introduced a number of measures to address antisocial behaviour, including antisocial behaviour orders. Such orders, which seek to curb the activities of individuals who make the lives of others a misery, start as civilian orders but can become criminal orders if their conditions are breached. Two hundred such orders have been approved in England and Wales.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs recently took part in a seminar in Cardiff promoting the use of antisocial behaviour orders, and I hope that, as a result of that, more police authorities will take up their use.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that you will excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I inject an air of realism into these questions on law and order.
    What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Home Secretary to prioritise violent crime as an issue that needs urgent action? The number of crimes of violence against the person in Wales in 1997 was 17,386; the figure today is 38,230. The total figure for violent crime in 1997 was 20,071; today it is 40,880. When are we going to have some urgent action to tackle violent crime in Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have launched an action plan to combat violent crime. Indeed, detection rates for violent crime in the South Wales police area stand at 86 per cent. Violent crime figures in that area have risen slightly, but not by anything like the national average. Most violent offences are committed in public areas—for example, brawls outside pubs and clubs—and initiatives have been put in place to combat them. I am pleased with the initiatives taken by the South Wales police to tackle violent crime, which have significantly increased detection rates.
    Mr. Evans: I am glad that the Minister is satisfied, but I suspect that the people of Wales are not. He knows that violent crime has gone up, while the number of special constables who assist the regular constabulary has gone down. In 1997, there were 1,142 specials in Wales; today, there are 811. Will he undertake to have urgent talks with the Home Secretary about increasing the number of specials in Wales? Will he also give his full support to the police in Wales? Last year, 715 police were injured in assaults in the line of duty in Wales. Will he give his full backing to the campaign to ensure that, next year, the police get the Queen's golden jubilee medal, which they so richly deserve?
    Mr. Touhig: I shall take the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question first. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have taken note of his point but, if not, I shall draw it to his attention.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)indicated assent.
    Mr. Touhig: Indeed, my right hon. Friend has.
    I take the hon. Gentleman's point about specials, but he ignores the fact that, in the last year, the number of police officers on the beat in Wales has increased by 241. Indeed, there will be a further increase of 259 police officers on the beat in Wales in the coming year. That contrasts sharply with the reduction in the number of officers on the beat when his party was in government.

    Security
    Albert Owen: What recent discussions he has had with the appropriate Government Ministers and Departments relating to increased security measures at ports, RAF bases and nuclear installations in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [12471]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I am in regular contact with Cabinet colleagues through the civil contingencies committee, of which the First Minister and I are both members.
    The Government have taken all prudent measures to protect infrastructure installations including those to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Albert Owen: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. He will be aware of the concerns of my constituents in Ynys Môn, an area with a major ferry port, an RAF training base and a nuclear power station. He will further be aware of the cost implications of additional security measures for the two companies in the port. Has he raised with the Cabinet the possibility of grant aid? If so, what was the response?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but I assure him that the Government are doing all in their power to safeguard the people of Anglesey. I understand that Stena has raised the matter with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is considering the request, but I cannot prejudge the decision to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
    In respect of Wylfa, our civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures, regulated by the Office of Civil Nuclear Security, and work with the Health and Safety Executive. Both bodies have reviewed their precautions in the light of 11 September and are making recommendations to the Government. Clearly, it would be wrong for me to go into further detail, including the details to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Given that many of the military personnel who may soon see active service in Afghanistan were trained in my constituency on the Brecon Beacons and the Epynt training range, will the Secretary of State ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence enhances security at the military bases at Brecon and Sennybridge to safeguard the security of the soldiers and communities that live and work in that area?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and shall pass it on to the Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on individual security details.
    Llew Smith: While I accept the need to increase security at nuclear installations, does the Secretary of State accept that that is only a short-term measure and that the real answer is to bring an end to our nuclear role, thereby removing the risk of terrorist attack on such targets?
    Mr. Murphy: I note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Hywel Williams: Following the recent terrorist outrages, will the Secretary of State ask the performance and innovation unit's energy review group to extend its remit to report on the security of nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Murphy: We take all those points into account but, as 1 have said, at these difficult times it would not be

    849
    right for me to go into detail on the recommendations that have been made to the Department of Trade and Industry. The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman and taken his remarks into account.

    Miners' Compensation
    Ian Lucas: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning the progress of settlements of claims in the miners' compensation scheme in north-east Wales. [12475]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy recently attended the Welsh coal health claims monitoring group to discuss the operation of the scheme in Wales, following which he and I then met volunteer workers with the National Union of Mineworkers. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales established the Welsh monitoring group specifically to address coal health issues in Wales. I am convinced that the measures discussed, and the actions taken so far by the monitoring group will further speed the process of paying out claims to miners and their widows.
    Ian Lucas: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. While I recognise that this is the largest legal claim in British history and appreciate my hon. Friend's commitment to the issue, does he accept that practical difficulties remain? They include the case of my constituent, Mr. Thomas Evans, who has been waiting two years for a spirometry test. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will do everything in his power to ensure that the Wrexham assessment centre operates at full capacity in future?
    Mr. Touhig: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend referred. Mr. Evans had a spirometry test in October 1999; in December 2000, the test was declared invalid and he was given the option of being re-tested. He declined the offer and, as a result, went on to apply for the full second-phase test, the MAP test. I am given to understand by IRISC, the Government's claim handlers, that it wrote to Mr. Evans's solicitors in July asking for a claims pack to be completed and is still awaiting its return. I shall do anything I can to help my hon. Friend speed up that claim. The monitoring group is fully aware of the problems that have been causing difficulties with the operation of the Wrexham testing centre, but we are satisfied that everything is being done to provide the necessary respiratory consultants to carry out all the tests required. If he wishes, I shall look into the case further. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will also reply to him directly.
    Adam Price: We have already heard how bad the situation is in north-east Wales. However, according to the Government's own figures, only 3 per cent. of claims in Carmarthenshire have been fully and finally settled. After all the representations that the Secretary of State has had on the issue from Welsh Members, why does Wales still have the slowest processing rate for full and final claims?
    Mr. Touhig: May I, in the friendliest possible way, warn the hon. Gentleman to be wary of statistics? There
    850
    are various reasons for the comparative figures that he gave on full and final settlements in Wales and the United Kingdom. Although it is true that 7 per cent. of claims in Wales have been settled fully and finally, there are reasons for the delays. There can, for example, be delays because of the number of claimants and the difficulty in collecting evidence and the work records of older claimants—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would like to listen I shall give him an answer. There have, of course, also been difficulties in collecting hospital records.
    In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in the two postcode areas to which he referred in his interview in this morning's newspapers, 1,620 claimants have submitted claims and have received £2 million in interim and in full and final settlements. Additionally, a further 613 claimants have made claims under the vibration white finger scheme and have received £1 million. Therefore, about 30 per cent. of all claimants in his parliamentary constituency have received funding—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The reply is too long.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I attended a seminar on primary care trusts and the national health service. I also spoke to President Bush and Chancellor Schröder on the current international crisis. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Turner: Given that, on 4 July, the Prime Minister promised concessionary travel for pensioners on long-distance coach services, does he sympathise with pensioners on the Isle of Wight who have to cross the most expensive stretch of water in the country to board those coach services? Will he provide similar concessions on ferries?
    The Prime Minister: That is a good constituency question. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment, but I hope that he will join me in supporting concessionary bus fares for pensioners. Such a scheme was rejected for many years under the previous, Conservative Government, but it has been delivered under the current one.
    Dr. Hywel Francis: The House will know of the terrible explosion that occurred last Thursday in the No. 5 blast furnace in Port Talbot in my constituency. I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me and the whole House in sending our deepest condolences to the families of the three men who died and to the families of the 13 men who were injured and remain in Morriston hospital. May I also invite the Prime Minister to join me

    851
    in thanking the emergency services for the tremendous work that they did, and particularly the burns unit in Morriston hospital for the continuing work that it is doing for the injured? Finally, may I also ask him to join me in urging the press and all parties concerned to respect the privacy of the families and the work force in their hour of need and to allow the various inquiries to continue their vital work?
    The Prime Minister: First, I know that my hon. Friend has spoken for the whole House in extending the sympathies of both sides of the House to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy. I certainly join him in congratulating the emergency services on the work that they have done. I know that the Health and Safety Executive is investigating the incident, and it is too early to speculate on the exact causes. I am sure that that investigation should be allowed to continue, and I hope very much that those parts of the media that are reporting on the issue will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister's condolences expressed to the constituents of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) who suffered in that tragic accident?
    In the light of today's increases in unemployment, will the Prime Minister confirm that the International Labour Organisation's figures show that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country has fallen to the lowest level since its records began?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the fall in employment, the rise in unemployment, is deeply regrettable, but, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will know, these are economic circumstances that are affecting the entire world at present. There have been rises in unemployment in virtually every one of the major western European and American countries. I think most people accept that as a result of low inflation, low interest rates, strong public finances and a huge reduction in unemployment over the past few years, Britain is probably as well placed as any major economy to weather the storms that we are experiencing.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Everyone would accept the existence of difficulties arising from 11 September, but should not the Prime Minister recognise that these latest figures show a fall in manufacturing employment of more than 120,000 in the year to September—before the events of 11 September? Even his own Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
    "before 11 th September, thousands of manufacturing workers were losing their jobs."
    She went on to say:
    "There is real pain in our manufacturing industry."
    She was right, but British business does not need a Government who feel its pain; it needs a Government who recognise that red tape and stealth taxes are stopping British people from keeping their jobs.
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is true that manufacturing industry has been through very difficult times, and indeed was going through difficult times before 11 September. That is happening in many parts of the
    852
    world at present, for obvious reasons—not just those associated with 11 September, but because of events before then, when growth rates were predicted to fall in most of the European economies and, indeed, the American economy. Manufacturing also had a very tough time because of the weakness of the euro and the strength of the pound.
    I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's claim that this is to do with issues involving tax or regulation. In fact, what has happened in this country is that, since this Government came to power, we have the lowest interest rates we have had for 40 years, the lowest inflation in Europe, and the highest employment of any major European country. If we are talking about the pain of manufacturing, I think that what most parts of manufacturing remember are the early 1990s, when we lost more than a million jobs, output fell by 7 per cent. and interest rates were at 15 per cent.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: But this Government have imposed more than £10 billion in extra costs on British business. That is why the director general of the Confederation of British Industry said last week:
    "You are a regulatory government … You are a Government that last year brought in 3,800 regulations in 365 days".
    Is it not time for the Prime Minister to admit that this Government are damaging British business, and to instruct his Chancellor to give business a break?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little unwise to quote the CBI director general. He did not quote all that the director general said last week. The director general also said that the United Kingdom had
    "low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment—the most successful economy in Western Europe."
    As for the bits of regulation that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the figure of more than 3,000 relates to statutory instruments. It is true that there have been more than 3,000 statutory instruments; there were during the last years of the last Government. That is because 60 per cent. are to do with local matters, and nothing to do with regulation. [Interruption.] No, they have absolutely nothing to do with it.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's £10 billion figure, I will itemise how it is broken down by some parts of business. The vast majority relates to the minimum wage. [Interruption.] We are in favour of it, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was. The vast majority of the rest is to do with the working time directive, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, was agreed by the last Government and implemented by us.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the quest for a sustainable future for Afghanistan, the role of the United Nations will become increasingly important in securing both international and internal acceptance for a future Administration? Will he give every co-operation that he can to ensure that the UN can indeed find a stable future for that country?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can to support the United Nations in its work. As he rightly says, we require

    853
    a broad-based regime in Afghanistan., and the people to lead the process are undoubtedly the United Nations. We have to demonstrate to the people of Afghanistan that the whole of the world community stands behind a broad-based Government and reconstruction in Afghanistan over a period of time. We remain totally committed to both those objectives.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I share the Prime Minister's desire to fight terrorism in Britain, but does he agree that we should not do so by unduly undermining our existing human and democratic rights here? In that context, will he reconsider the proposed part of the new anti-terrorism legislation that would remove the right to judicial review for special immigration appeal cases? Would not that removal run the risk of sending quite the wrong signal?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for this reason: it is important that we have the power to detain suspected terrorists whom we cannot deport to another country, for reasons connected with the current state of the law, as he knows. If we do not have that power, there is a severe gap in the legislation. We take this power reluctantly and after careful consideration, but in the present circumstances I do not believe that it would be responsible, for the protection of citizens here, not to have it, although it will be exercised. of course, in a very small number of cases.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister therefore acknowledge that, with our having so recently incorporated the European convention, that reluctance must extend to the Government's feeling that, because of events, we have to opt out of one of its provisions? Can he at least give the House a guarantee that, at the first practicable moment, he will restore article 5, because it would be perverse in the extreme for us to remove civil rights in our own country at the very moment when we are, quite properly, campaigning for them on the international stage?
    The Prime Minister: We are not opting out of the European convention. We have the power within the convention, in certain specific circumstances, to ensure that we can exercise particular powers. We have taken those powers to ourselves for this reason: we were in a situation in which suspected terrorists were coming into this country and we were unable to deport them to another country because, for example, that country might have executed them. So, we had a gap in the power and those people were allowed to stay and could not be detained, and they are a threat to our national security. There are not many of them, but they are a threat.
    It is very important in these circumstances, particularly when we know that the threat posed by the terrorist network still exists, that we have the powers that we need. However, there are two very important safeguards. First, when we detain, the case is taken to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. People can present their case there, but we can also present our confidential security evidence. There are also appeals on points of law in respect of the commission's decisions. Secondly, we have made it clear—and we will abide by this—that the legislation must be reviewed and renewed annually. That is what we will do. Those are proper safeguards.
    854
    The provisions will apply only in a small number of cases, but I can only imagine the position in the House if we failed to take the powers and ended up with people whom we knew to be suspected terrorists being at liberty in this country to cause difficulty either here or abroad.
    Andy King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the millions of people in Afghanistan who were facing the prospect of starvation this winter will now be secure in the knowledge that aid and food will be given to them, so they can face the winter with peace and security, knowing that their children will not starve to death?
    The Prime Minister: We are now able, as I will explain, to get substantially more food and aid into Afghanistan and, most important of all, ensure that it is directed at the people who really need it. We will give every support and help to that programme. That is far easier to do now that the Taliban regime is collapsing.
    Sir Robert Smith: Last year, 547 sub-post offices closed, but anyone thinking of investing in re-opening one of them would be completely unclear about how the universal bank and the card account will affect that business. Will the Prime Minister therefore ensure that his Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry get together to end that uncertainty, otherwise, his promise that pensions can be collected from a sub-post office will be a hollow one?
    The Prime Minister: They still can be, at present, and we need to ensure that the new arrangements are in place by the time the new system comes in. We will ensure that that is done. Of course, we must ensure that the details of the universal bank—exactly how it will work—are properly worked out in practice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: As one of the 39 old-age pensioners in the House, I declare an interest in my question. Does the Prime Minister agree with the 2,000 pensioners who visited Westminster on 6 November that it is morally indefensible to ask elderly patients, who have carefully saved for years, to pay for parts of their health care that will be free in Scotland soon?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the changes that we have introduced, pensioners will not have to pay for nursing care that they used to have to pay for. The question is whether we should go further and spend what amounts to £1 billion on personal care. [Interruption.] When we talk about spending money, the Liberal Democrats say yes before even doing the sums or before it is stated what the money is to be spent on. The fact is we do not believe that that is the best use of money.
    In respect of different parts of health care, including the amount that will be spent on the hon. Gentleman's constituency, we have to choose priorities. Our belief is that we are making changes in paying for nursing care, but the £ 1 billion is spent in better ways in other parts of our national health service, and every penny we spend always has to be paid for.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Is the Prime Minister aware of the carpet of lilies campaign currently being run by the Haemophilia Society on behalf of those haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C or AIDS as a result of contaminated blood products? Can he give an assurance that the Government will consider the society's requests for action and, in particular, the availability of the blood treatment product, recombinant, throughout the UK, and not just in Wales and Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: We are prepared to look at the blood treatment product and how we can help people in that situation. What I cannot offer my hon. Friend is support for the entire range of demands made by that campaign. We sympathise with it and we understand the problems that people face, but she will know that successive Governments have made it clear that there is a limit to the amount of compensation that we can pay.
    Matthew Green: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is strong public support for a West Mercia health authority, linking Shropshire with Herefordshire and Worcestershire? The Government, however, are consulting on four options. The first three options link Staffordshire with Shropshire and, surprisingly, option No. 4 links Staffordshire with Shropshire. Is that the Prime Minister's preferred method of consultation?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the options were put forward after consulting many people about them, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard the representations that he has just made.
    Rosemary McKenna: On Sunday in my constituency, a moving speech was made by the Rev. Shirley Bench, a Methodist minister from California, at the Kilsyth war memorial. Will the Prime Minister accept her thanks and those of millions of Americans for his support in the successful campaign and will he give the House details of how we will assist in delivering aid to Afghanistan to restore Afghan society as quickly as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, in my statement later I will provide details of the humanitarian help that we will give, but the strength and solidarity that many people in this country have shown with the United States of America has not just been of enormous comfort to people in America, but has shown the strength of the bilateral relations between our two countries. I am sure that what happened in my hon. Friend's constituency was replicated in many constituencies up and down the country.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the number of patients waiting more than 12 months for in-patient treatment has fallen or risen since he has been Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Overall, in-patient lists have gone down by around 100,000. It is true that there are certain categories where waiting times have risen, but overall they are down by over 100,000.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not answer the question, which is no great surprise, and gave us anything but the facts. My question was: has the number of patients from his lists of those waiting more than 12 months fallen or risen?
    The Prime Minister: I said it is correct that the numbers of patients in certain categories of waiting have risen, but overall the numbers of people waiting have fallen. Since our first year in government, when in-patient and out-patient lists went up as we were still abiding by the same financing regime as the previous Government, in-patient and out-patient lists have fallen.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not want to answer that question because the reality is that the number waiting a year has not just risen, but risen by more than 13,000. Even that does not tell the whole story, however. If we look around the country, we see that in Leeds there has been a fivefold increase, in Birmingham a 17-fold increase and in west Devon a 68-fold increase in the numbers waiting. The British Medical Association has already said that the Government will fail on the waiting lists initiative, and today even one of his Ministers said:
    "I think Labour are going to fail on health".
    Is not the reason why they will fail simply that, as ever, he and his colleagues put dogma before the needs of patients?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cited various constituencies and I am surprised that he did not mention his own, but I will do that. In-patient waiting lists are down by almost 4,000 in his health authority area. The right hon. Gentleman was correct in what he said about people waiting more than 12 months, but overall the numbers of people waiting for in-patient treatment have fallen by more than 100,000 and that meets our manifesto commitment. The only reason for that fall and for the fact that there are half a million more operations taking place in the health service today, the new hospital-building programme and the additional nurses and doctors is the extra spending that the Government are putting into the health service. What is the position of the Conservative party in relation to this extra spending? It opposes it. Yes, it is true that the BMA may criticise us over the health service, but the one group of people—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be no shouting.
    The Prime Minister: The BMA certainly can criticise us, but the one group of people who cannot is the Conservative party. The Conservatives are opposed to the very investment that can make the health service better.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Should not there now be an end to the bombing in Afghanistan, as many of the military objectives must have been achieved? The areas that are still dominated by the Taliban include many anti-Taliban forces and it must not

    857
    be easy to distinguish between the two operations. We are also approaching Ramadan and it would be of great benefit to the Islamic world to have a pause at this time.
    The Prime Minister: I can honestly tell my hon. Friend that the trouble with the point he is making is that its credibility would have been improved had he not been saying the same thing a week ago. Had we not carried on with the campaign to make sure that we targeted the front-line Taliban troops, we would not be in the position that we are in today where we can improve the humanitarian situation and set about the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It is important that we carry on until our objectives are delivered, but of course as the situation changes, we change the military package. That is precisely what we should do, but had we stopped when my hon. Friend first asked me to stop, we would not be in the position that we are in today, which is an important one to be in.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the Prime Minister congratulate his constituent Brian Hunter, who was one of this morning's winners of the Lilly outstanding achievement awards for diabetes? Today is world diabetes day, so will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the national health service framework for diabetes is not now going ahead as planned in 2002?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly join in the congratulations to my constituent, and I am delighted that he has received that award. Because of certain points put to the Government in representations from doctors and others, we are still in conversation with them about what is the best type of framework. The hon. Gentleman will know that we now have national health service frameworks operating across a range of different areas of disease. Those frameworks are very good and people welcome them, but they impose an additional work load on doctors. We are in discussion and consultation with GPs about the best way to proceed with the framework for diabetes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to do that in such a way that the framework gains the support of the medical profession, whose members, after all, are the people who have to implement it.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Now that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are sorting out Railtrack—[Interruption]. May I ask that the Government now turn their attention to such operating companies as Virgin, which provides a deplorable service between London and north Wales? The service is getting worse week by week because of poor management and worn-out trains.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, that is precisely why it is important that we make the necessary changes in the structure of Railtrack. We must also make sure that any additional money we put into the railways gets to the front-line provision of better railways, in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.
    Conservative Members shouted out a moment or two ago, but their transport spokeswoman was asked what a
    858
    Conservative Government would do, and whether they would agree to put in the extra money that Railtrack wanted. She said:
    "it's difficult at the moment to actually know exactly what it is that Railtrack was asking for".
    It is not difficult at all. Railtrack was asking for at least £1.7 billion extra. In effect, it was asking for a blank cheque from the Government. The difference between the Government and the Conservatives is that we believe that that money should go to the better provision of railways, and they believe that it should go in a subsidy to shareholders.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: In light of the unfortunate and confused statements by the Minister for Europe, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm the 1969 pledge that the constitutional status of Gibraltar will not be altered without the consent of the people who live there?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have reaffirmed that pledge, and so has my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to imply otherwise. Indeed, I reaffirmed it at the press conference held with Prime Minister Aznar on Friday. However, it is important that the Brussels process should go forward. There are genuine political and practical problems that we should discuss with Spain. We hope very much that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar will participate. I think that it is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar that he does. That process should go forward because it is right for the interests of this country and of the people of Gibraltar.
    Chris McCafferty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Afghanistan has the second-highest rate of maternal mortality in the world? More that 50 Afghani women die every day from complications in pregnancy and childbirth, and one in four Afghani children die before they reach their fifth birthday. Now, only 5 per cent. of Afghani women can read and write. The Taliban did not allow women doctors, lawyers and teachers to work or girls to attend school. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will do everything that he can to ensure that Afghani women are represented at every level in discussions on the social, economic and political reconstruction of their country?
    The Prime Minister: The point that my hon. Friend makes is quite right. Of course the women of Afghanistan should be involved in the discussions that will take place. I do not think that there is any group of people in Afghanistan with more to celebrate at the departure of the Taliban regime than Afghan women, who have been subject to brutal oppression over a long period of time. That is one reason among many others why it is good that the Taliban regime's days are numbered.
    Mr. Mark Francois: Following on from his very unconvincing answer a few minutes ago, can the Prime Minister explain why waiting times in accident and emergency units are longer than they were four years ago?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that at all. Money is going in to accident and emergency departments—

    859
    indeed, virtually every accident and emergency department in the country has received special dedicated funds. That extra money is making a difference. Of course, it is Conservative policy to oppose the extra investment. They have learned absolutely nothing from the last Parliament, when they called continually for tax cuts on the one hand and extra investment on the other. At some point, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have to choose.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Prime Minister rehearse for a few more moments what he had
    860
    to say on unemployment at the beginning of these exchanges? Is he aware that there would be more jobs knocking about if some of these Tories who have 400 jobs between them, moonlighting, spread them around? Is it not significant that the very day that the Leader of the Opposition opens his trap on this issue, it is the very week that the last Leader of the Opposition has just taken two more jobs?
    The Prime Minister: Not for the first time, I think what a loss my hon. Friend is to the Dispatch Box.

International Coalition Against Terrorism
3.32 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on events in Afghanistan.
It is now clear that the Taliban regime is in a state of collapse across Afghanistan. Carefully targeted coalition bombing of its front lines opened the way for the Northern Alliance to advance. The fall of Mazar-i-Sharif on 9 November was the key to the north. It accelerated defections from the Taliban, and allowed General Dostam and Mohammed Atta of the Northern Alliance to cut the lines of communication of the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda troops in the north-east.
One after another, Taliban positions folded: Taloqan, Baghlan, Bamiyan. The major city in the west, Herat, fell without a fight, to Ismail Khan. Now we see that the strategy that we have pursued is equally successful in the Pushtun south of the country.
Kabul fell without serious resistance on Monday night. Key cities in the Pushtun south have followed Kabul swiftly, including Jalalabad. It is clear that support for the Taliban is evaporating. Although there may be pockets of resistance, the idea that this has been some kind of tactical retreat is just the latest Taliban lie. They are in total collapse.
There are reports today that senior Taliban figures in Gardez—including Borders Minister Haqqani and intelligence Chief Ahmadullah—have surrendered. Kandahar airport has reportedly been taken by anti-Taliban forces. I have to say that regrettable incidents have happened as the liberated people have turned on their oppressors, and they should not happen. I appeal to the Northern Alliance and all other forces in Afghanistan to be restrained, to avoid acts of revenge and to engage with the United Nations.
I believe that the whole House and country should welcome the progress that has been made. Although conflict is never easy or pleasant, to see women and children smiling after years under one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world is finally to understand the true meaning of the word "liberation".
I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding leadership that President Bush has given, and give heartfelt thanks to the British forces involved, now and in the future. There is no greater comfort to the British people than to know that we can call on some of the best armed forces in the world. Their work and their contribution to Britain's strength and international standing is immense.
I also pay tribute to European solidarity, to the countries of the European Union that have stood firm throughout this crisis and to our other coalition partners. However, there remain huge challenges—the military job is not yet done; Osama bin Laden is still at large, and so are his close associates; the diplomatic and political situation remains difficult; and the threat of an humanitarian crisis remains. The United Kingdom will continue to play a full role in the military, diplomatic and humanitarian aspects of this campaign, the objectives of which remain as set out in the document published in the House Library on 16 October.
862
So far, our forces have been involved in the air strikes using Tomahawk missiles and have provided support to US bombers. On the ground, our forces have been involved in liaising and working with the Northern Alliance, advising them and helping to co-ordinate action.
I can confirm to the House that several thousand of our troops are being put on 48-hour notice to move in case they are required in the area. Those include elements from 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault Brigades, including 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment and 45 Commando Royal Marines, as well as a range of supporting assets including RAF air transport, support helicopters, engineers, logistics teams and explosive ordnance experts.
For obvious reasons, I cannot give the House full details of how those troops may be used. Consultations with the United States and our other coalition partners continue. The main purpose of the troops would be in the context of multinational efforts to make safe the humanitarian supply routes that are now opening up as a result of military progress on the ground. Others may be focused on securing airfields and clearing unexploded ordnance, and on ensuring the safe return of the United Nations and non-governmental organisations to Afghanistan, thereby permitting the construction of the broad-based Government that is so badly needed.
The troops will remain in place for only a strictly limited period, while an international force to work alongside Afghan military commanders is prepared. We cannot, of course, rule out some of our troops being used in offensive front-line operations—40 Commando Royal Marines remain at a high state of readiness for contingency operations.
On the humanitarian front, an average of more than 2,000 tonnes of food a day has been dispatched since 4 November. That is four times the rate at the start of October, when it was about 500 tonnes a day. The World Food Programme is optimistic about reaching its targets: it has dispatched more than 50,000 tonnes of food to Afghanistan since the beginning of October—sufficient for 5 million people for one month. We look forward, however, to the opening of a corridor from the liberated areas to the borders with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In particular, the Friendship Bridge between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan will be made safe for the passage of those supplies.
The UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross should now be able to improve delivery of food, health care and other assistance to 2 million vulnerable people in the northern region of Afghanistan. Plans are now being made for the international staff of the UN, the Red Cross and NGOs to return to Afghanistan. In addition, we will be able to accelerate deliveries to areas in central Afghanistan, which will become harder to access as winter sets in, so that sufficient stockpiles can be built up closer to the people who need them. That will further reduce the suffering of the Afghan people and, I hope, show the rest of Afghanistan that life for the entire nation will be better once the Taliban regime has gone.
The advance of the anti-Taliban forces has been assisted by defections from disillusioned Taliban supporters. It is time for the rest of Afghanistan—particularly the ethnic groups in the south—to join the uprising against the Taliban and throw off their oppressive rule. The sooner they act, the greater the benefit for all the people in Afghanistan.

863
The structure of post-Taliban Afghanistan will be for the Afghan people to determine. However, we will provide strong diplomatic and economic support to the aspirations of Afghan parties committed to an inclusive, democratic political structure, committed to the welfare of all Afghan men, women and children, and committed to providing substantial local autonomy.
I spoke to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, yesterday, and he outlined to me the process that will now be followed. The first step will be an early UN-convened meeting of representatives of the various Afghan anti-Taliban groups—including Pushtuns—under the UN special representative, Mr. Brahimi. This would lead to a transitional Administration. To support that process under Mr. Brahimi, the UN Security Council will be adopting a resolution to underpin the principles on which Mr. Brahimi is working.
The immediate next step is for the UN to establish a presence in Kabul. I am delighted that Mr. Vendrell, UN deputy special representative for Afghanistan, and Mike Sackett, UN humanitarian co-ordinator, plan to travel there on Friday. We plan to have a UK diplomatic presence in Kabul by the weekend. I have also spoken today to President Bush and to Chancellor Schroder. The coalition is as strong today as it has ever been.
In respect of the very basis of this action, we must never forget why we are engaged in it—it is because on 11 September al-Qaeda perpetrated the worst terrorist outrage in history. It is to bring it to justice and to eliminate it as a threat to world affairs that we have been and are acting as we are.
Today, I have put in the Library an updated version of the evidence document first published on 4 October. The new document will be translated into Arabic, Urdu and other languages. The intelligence material now leaves no doubt whatever of the guilt of Osama bin Laden and his associates. On 4 October, we knew that three of the hijackers were linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; now we know that the majority were. Indeed, the utterances from the al-Qaeda network and from bin Laden's own mouth leave no doubt: far from hiding their guilt, they gloat about it. On 9 October, one of bin Laden's spokesmen praised the 11 September atrocities as "a good deed", which
"transferred the battle into the US heartland".
He warned that
"the storm of plane attacks will not abate".
On 20 October, bin Laden said in an unbroadcast video tape:
"If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists."
They are terrorists, and history will judge them as such.
Before the history books are written, however, we will continue to hunt them down, and we will continue to do so for as long as it takes to bring them to the justice they deserve. They are guilty and they will face justice, and today, thankfully, they have far fewer places to hide and far fewer people who wish to protect them.
As we have made clear from the outset, the campaign against terrorism is much more than a military campaign—it is diplomatic, humanitarian, economic and legal. It has meant changing our laws to protect ourselves at home, and working with others to protect ourselves abroad.
864
Above all, at this moment, I say to the people of Afghanistan: "As we hunt down those terrorists who committed murder and as we hunt down those who are hiding in your country, they and not you are our enemy. This time, we will not walk away. Your future is in your hands, but our hands are there in friendship to help you to shape that future."
The people of Afghanistan have suffered grievously from a brutal regime, from conflict, from famine and from drought. We want to see a country with a Government representing all the people of Afghanistan, occupying a proud place in the community of nations, growing economically, enriching its people and liberating their potential. Frankly, a country that has suffered so much deserves no less than a fresh start.
Let us be clear—the way that the world embraces and supports the new Afghanistan will be the clearest possible indication that the dreadful events of 11 September have resulted in a triumph for the international community acting together as a force for good, and in the defeat of the evil that is international terrorism. I think that we all know now that a safer world is built, ultimately, out of secure countries representing all their people living in peace with their neighbours. That is how terrorism will eventually be defeated, and that, step by step, must be the new international order that emerges from the worst terrorist outrage in our history.
Whatever the challenges and whatever the setbacks along the way, I believe that is a vision and a world worth fighting for.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: We are grateful to the Prime Minister for responding to our and other requests for a statement this afternoon. May I start by saying that I join the Prime Minister in his warm and quite correct tribute to President Bush for the way that he has led and shaped the coalition?
Clearly, what has happened in Afghanistan during the past few days—as the Prime Minister has made absolutely plain—is a complete vindication of the strategy that has been pursued by the coalition, led to a great degree by the Prime Minister and his Government during the past four weeks. Had we heeded the calls of those who, for whatever reason, demanded a pause in the bombing, we would not have achieved the successes that have been achieved so far; nor would we be any closer to a situation in which effective humanitarian aid can be brought through. That is clear.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the general role of the coalition forces, including, as it appears, our own armed forces. The Opposition support the decision to place British troops on stand-by, ready to be deployed, if necessary, in Afghanistan, If the need arises for them to be deployed in areas such as Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif, we will continue to support the Government in that decision.
I also associate myself totally with what the Prime Minister has said about our armed forces being the best in the world. We are in no doubt that whatever they may be called upon to do, they will do it with their customary professionalism, bravery and effectiveness, and the thoughts of all hon. Members must surely be with them and, moreover, their families, who wait with expectation for what may come.

865
We welcome the fact that the UN is now able to establish a presence in Kabul, as the Prime Minister said. However, there have been some mixed messages from the UN in recent days about its role or how it saw its role. Does the Prime Minister now feel confident that the UN is clear about its objectives and its role, as that could affect any deployment of our armed forces and the length of time that they may have to spend in Afghanistan?
We have now achieved our first objective—the removal of the Taliban Government from Kabul—yet we cannot afford to be complacent, as the Prime Minister said. The Taliban remain undefeated and dangerous in other parts of Afghanistan. Does the Prime Minister agree that, even as we enter the month of Ramadan, any let up in the coalition forces' campaign would be disastrous? Will he confirm that, beyond defeating the Taliban, our objectives still remain as they were—to bring bin Laden to justice, to dismantle the al-Qaeda terrorist network, to deliver effective aid and to wage war on international terrorism wherever it rears its head?
Having come so far, the last thing that we now need is for a power vacuum to be created in Afghanistan, into which people or groups could begin to take the law into their own hands. As the Prime Minister said, and as I know he is aware, the Northern Alliance is, in essence, an alliance perhaps in name only, and it cannot necessarily fill that vacuum. There is now an urgent need for the formation of a new broadly based Administration who can command widespread support in Afghanistan and who are committed to handing over bin Laden and to dismantling al-Qaeda, as the Prime Minister said.
The Prime Minister is also right, in case there is any doubt, to restate bin Laden's guilt by even adding to the charges that there were already. I must say that I have always been surprised by those who have said that they needed more evidence of his guilt than that already available. He was guilty as charged when we last discussed this issue; whatever else comes simply makes his guilt even more obvious.
The other immediate priority is to deliver aid to those in the refugee camps and others who have been displaced from their homes around the borders. As the key supply routes are opened up, and with the Taliban no longer in control, we have a very narrow window of opportunity to do that before the winter sets in. I hope that the Prime Minister will state, a little more clearly perhaps, some of the aspects of that aid in which we shall engage. We welcome what he has said about humanitarian aid in general. Does he agree that the point has been made that delivering aid was always dependent on defeating the Taliban, without which it would have been nearly impossible?
At the outset, the President of the United States described this as a war against international terrorism, and I have always believed that he was right. Surely one of the lessons of 11 September is that, if we fail to maintain the pressure on terrorism everywhere, we are all at risk. Last night, the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said:
"We are clearly in this for the long haul. We need to find the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban leadership to stop them. Then we need to address that network and other networks elsewhere in the world, but it will take time".
866
I totally agree with him, and I am sure that the Prime Minister does, too. The message must go out loud and clear: terrorism is not being tolerated now and it will not be tolerated in the future. The days of safe havens—wherever they are—are at an end.
No civilised country will any longer be allowed, or should be allowed, to foster groups such as the Taliban and allow them to use terrorism for their own twisted purpose. Therefore, does the Prime Minister agree that our long-term objective has to be the continued prosecution of the international campaign against terrorism, wherever it occurs and wherever it finds shelter?
The Prime Minister: I can be reasonably brief in my response because I think that we agree on all the main points. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he has given for the decision to put our armed forces on standby. I also agree with what he has just said about the importance of making sure that we defeat international terrorism in all its forms.
I wish to deal with two or three of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The first relates to the United Nations being clear about its objectives. Obviously, aspects are still under discussion, but, as I know from my conversations with the UN Secretary-General, the UN wants to do all that it possibly can to help. However, some difficult logistical and practical questions need to be resolved. We are in conversation with the Secretary-General about them, but the decision to hold a broad-based meeting of representatives of the Afghan people, and the decision of Mr. Vendrell and Mr. Sackett to go to Kabul as soon as possible, are an indication that the UN is moving with the necessary rapidity.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's point about the power vacuum shows precisely why the UN should move with rapidity; we do not want a power vacuum to open up. As I said in an interview with BBC Pushtun radio earlier today, it is important that people understand that the Government in Afghanistan must involve more than simply the Northern Alliance. There is a very clear understanding on that.
The final point relates to the guilt of Osama bin Laden. At the very beginning, there was a thought—not so much in this country, but certainly in other parts of the world—that, because this was a terrible terrorist act and because Osama bin Laden was the best-known terrorist in the world, we had merely decided that we would simply say that he was responsible. In actual fact, it was very clear that the acts of 11 September bore all the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden. It is now also clear that we can trace the majority of the hijackers to the al-Qaeda network. The intelligence evidence is now absolutely convincing about the complicity of al-Qaeda and bin Laden.
The document that we have placed in the Library today is an updated version of the previous document and provides a lot more intelligence detail about what we have discovered. We are now able to provide such detail. I hope that it is read not merely here but throughout the world in any situation where people have any doubt about bin Laden's guilt. Once people believe that he is guilty, we return to the question that has been at the heart of this from the beginning: do we let him get away with it, or do we pursue him? I think that most people—whatever their faith or country and whatever view they have of America, the west, the United Kingdom or any other country—

867
will understand that we had no option. Some 6,000 or more people were slaughtered in cold blood in America, so when we knew who was responsible, we had no option but to pursue them. We shall continue to pursue them until they are brought to justice.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the House will greet the Prime Minister's statement with a mixture of relief and apprehension given the current fast-moving situation. There is relief that tangible progress is now being made against the Taliban and towards the bringing to justice of bin Laden and the eventual elimination of his al-Qaeda terrorist network. Equally, however, there is apprehension based on the revulsion that many in this country and internationally have expressed about some of the atrocities that have been committed by the Northern Alliance. They have a bearing on the situation into which British forces may find themselves deployed in but a matter of days.
I make it clear on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that if and when British troops are deployed as part of the stabilisation force, they will have our full support in this most difficult and dangerous set of circumstances. Any such troop deployment must surely mark the beginning, not the end, of an integrated campaign on the ground further to isolate and ultimately to capture bin Laden.
May I ask the Prime Minister one or two specific questions about the British troops? Can he clarify under whose command they will be, and can he tell us more about the rules of engagement? For example, will the troops be able to intervene to stop atrocities that are under way, or will they be able to act only in self-defence? Can he also guarantee that all efforts will be made, beyond the UN Security Council resolution to which he referred, to secure a further resolution, so that if our troops are deployed, they are not viewed by the Afghans as taking one side of a civil war? That would lend still greater moral authority to the moral authority that we already possess in the action that we are undertaking.
In the longer tern, Britain and the United States will need to maintain pressure on the Northern Alliance, for reasons of common humanity and in terms of strategy towards establishing a broadly based, post-conflict Administration for Afghanistan as a whole. Does the Prime Minister agree that that must go hand in hand with giving support now to the refugee camps on the borders in Pakistan and Iran, and support later to the rebuilding of Afghanistan?
Finally, on wider issues, the Prime Minister is well aware of the pressures in Washington—opinion in the Administration—on President Bush to make the action in Afghanistan part of a wider action. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will use his influence with the President to stop military action being expanded to include Iraq? In the likely long winter ahead, not least for our troops and the poor people of Afghanistan, all of us must hope that evil and insanity can yet give way to good and stability.
The Prime Minister: I shall work back through those points. In relation to any wider effort, as I have always said, there are two phases: the military action focused on Afghanistan and the need to pursue international terrorism
868
in all its different forms. That is a matter of investigating its financing, how terrorists move across frontiers and how they acquire their weapons. Any action will be the subject of discussion among the coalition.
As I said a few days ago, it is important that we get the military action completed in Afghanistan. I stress to the House that it is not yet complete. We still have many difficult things to do. We will make sure that we get help to the refugee camps in Pakistan and elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has pointed out to me, the biggest need is inside Afghanistan, where it is far more difficult to get food and aid to people. That is the real problem. Of course, we want a new UN Security Council resolution which will give the necessary authority to the UN and to people acting under the UN to improve the situation.
In relation to UK troops, it is too early to discuss under whose command they will be or the rules of engagement. That will have to be decided when deployment takes place. Finally, in respect of the Northern Alliance, everyone knows that there are pictures in newspapers today, and so on. It is worth pointing out that in any situation, especially when people have suffered years of repression under the Taliban regime, there will be acts of revenge. I regret them. We do not condone them; we condemn them and ask that they do not happen. However, it is fair to say that many of the more exaggerated fears about what the Northern Alliance would do in Mazar-i-Sharif and in Kabul have not been fulfilled.
We, the Americans and other coalition partners have maintained close links at every level. I stress to the House yet again that the situation is difficult. There could be no more difficult place to undertake military action, to try to put together a new broad-based Government, and to mount a proper humanitarian effort when there are millions of refugees on the move. Those are all very difficult issues. On the military side, we have succeeded to a significant extent, but not yet fully. The political and humanitarian aspects remain immensely difficult, but we will do everything that we can to make sure that they, too, are brought to a successful conclusion.
David Winnick: Has not the lie been exposed—I hope for ever—that the coalition has been conducting an anti-Muslim crusade, bearing in mind how many people in the liberated areas are only too glad to see the end of the Taliban? Would it not be appropriate for the critics, be they in this House or outside, to accept that they were wrong, as they were about Kosovo? It would do no harm if they now recognised the error of their ways.
The Prime Minister: That is a very tempting offer, but in the interests of general harmony I shall refrain from accepting it. However, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point that is worth emphasising. I hope that, not merely in what is happening now but in the humanitarian and political actions that we take in Afghanistan, the whole of the Muslim world can see that we acted against terrorists—people who were abusing the true spirit and teachings of Islam. Of course, as he rightly pointed out, some years ago in Kosovo we were defending Muslims against oppression by a power that happened to be Orthodox Christian. However, the reason we acted then was not that they were Muslim, but that they were people who were suffering an injustice. There are many elements

869
that we should move forward once the conflict is over, but one of them is a far greater understanding between the different faiths in the world--in particular, a far greater understanding of Islam in the west and, perhaps, a greater understanding in Arab and Muslim countries of why we chose to act in the way in which we did and why we want nothing but friendship and fellowship with the Arab and Muslim world. I hope very much that, when the situation calms, we can get that message across and demonstrate it clearly by our actions as well as our words.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the Prime Minister and the Government on the way in which they have handled this matter. Today, a worrying survey has been published about UK Muslims, almost a third of whom have felt themselves to be subject to hostility and abuse. Clearly, it is utterly unacceptable to attack people for being Muslims. However, does he accept that it would be the wrong answer to introduce a new law on incitement to religious hatred and that we should instead concentrate on better enforcement of the laws that we already have?
The Prime Minister: On that last point, the difficulty, as I understand it, has always been that there is a gap in the law, because incitement to racial hatred is an offence but incitement to religious hatred is not. As the two can be very closely linked, it is felt to be right that that is a gap in the law that should be filled. I personally think that some of the objections that are made are very exaggerated in their claims about how great an interference such a law would be. Each case will be considered on its merits, but surely it should and must be unlawful for a Christian to incite the killing of Muslims or vice versa. I would have thought that that would be important. It is important that we fill the gap in the law.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some legitimate questions about how that poll was conducted. I believe, having talked to many Muslims in different parts of the country in the past few weeks, that many of them understand exactly why we have been acting. The one thing that was a clue from the people who were polled as to why they might hold their view was that more than 60 per cent. of them, I think, said that they were dubious about the guilt of Osama bin Laden. I hope very much that anybody who is doubtful about that will look at the evidence. They can get it perfectly easily; we make it available through our website. People can get that evidence and study it for themselves. Once they are convinced that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible, most people, unless they are entirely pacifist, which is a perfectly principled position, would accept that we had no option but to act as we did. We acted against bin Laden and in Afghanistan not because the people there were Muslims—far from it—but because the people who committed this atrocity were terrorists. We pursue them as terrorists in exactly the same way in which we pursue terrorists in any part of the world, whatever their religion.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the leadership of Pakistan comfortable with the continuation of bombing during Ramadan? The Leader of the Opposition used the word "disaster". Would not the real disaster be nuclear devices in Pakistan falling into the wrong hands?
The Prime Minister: I agree that that would be a disaster; we can all agree about that. President Musharraf
870
did not call for a halt to the bombing, as was reported in some newspapers. He said that he wanted the action to be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. We all want that. However, he also said that that had to be consistent with fulfilling the objectives.
One can take a principled position against the conflict and any form of action in Afghanistan, but one must accept the consequences: a terrorist network that is based, trains and is funded in Afghanistan, and has slaughtered 6,000 people in cold blood in the middle of the day in America, will be allowed to get away with it. There is no diplomatic solution to the al-Qaeda network; negotiations cannot be held with it.
Let us consider bin Laden's demands: obliterate Israel, kill all Jews, kill all Americans who support Israel, indeed all Americans. The United Kingdom and many other countries are probably also included in the list. Such people hold an extreme position. They also want the overthrow of any Arab regime that does not follow their fundamentalism. We cannot negotiate with them; we can either say that they can do what they want and get away with it or do what we can to prevent that.
We waited several weeks before we began the campaign to make the Taliban, which are an oppressive and hateful regime, choose. They made a choice, and it is increasingly obvious that it was impossible for them to separate themselves from al-Qaeda because they were effectively one and the same. Many people in Afghanistan objected not only to oppression by the Taliban and the terrible things that they did, but to their provision of a haven for people from outside the country from which they could export terrorism, much of it funded through the drugs trade.
Pakistan needs a stable and secure neighbour. It rightly wants a broad-based regime and its own strategic interest to be considered. It will be. President Musharraf has shown enormous courage. He has made the right decision for his people; that can already be demonstrated. I assure him that the commitments that we have made to the Government of Pakistan about the broad base of the regime and taking Pakistan's interests into account will he met in full.
Mr. John Taylor: I commend the Prime Minister for his international coalition building, and for sustaining the coalitions, but does he acknowledge any limit to the maxim,
"My enemy's enemy is my friend"?
The Prime Minister: I do, but if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Northern Alliance, it was necessary to support it in the way that we did
Kali Mountford: In the hourly changes in Afghanistan, is not it easy to forget that the purpose of being there is to pursue the guilty? Does my right hon. Friend know that Justice Scrivener QC has said that he would not convict a shoplifter on the evidence that we have shown so far? I thank my right hon. Friend for the evidence that he has placed in the Library, but does he believe that my constituents, who have also complained to me about the quality of evidence, will be convinced? On the day of reckoning when we are all held to account in a democracy, is my right hon. Friend convinced that we can say that we pursued the guilty?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point deserves an answer. I have not seen the comments to which she

871
referred. Let us leave aside the intelligence evidence—people may say that we are simply providing whatever evidence we want, although I believe that anyone who examined it would be convinced. Two other things are important. First, we have now traced the majority of the hijackers to the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan. That is where they were trained, where they came out of, and where they were connected to. One would have thought that that was hardly a coincidence.
Secondly, the best evidence since 11 September has increasingly come from what bin Laden and his spokesmen have said. People can read the full transcript of the video recordings of interviews that he has given. One might have thought that, if he was innocent, he would have been proclaiming his innocence and condemning the outrage. However, he has not done any of those things. On the contrary, he has said that it was absolutely the right thing to do, that he welcomed it, that the people who did it were heroes and, what is more, that he wants a lot more of it to happen. With the greatest respect to whoever it was who made the comment about the shoplifter, I think that although there is no convincing those who will not be convinced, if people study this matter, the evidence is clear and plain.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It may well be necessary to deploy United States and United Kingdom troops as a stabilisation force in Afghanistan, and I will support that. None the less, should not that be a temporary measure, bearing in mind that the United States and the United Kingdom have been engaged in a conflict with the Taliban and are likely to continue to be so engaged? 1 will support that engagement, too. However, is it not necessary for a degree of evenhandedness to be perceived to exist in, for example, the Pushtun areas? We have given support in concert with the Northern Alliance. In those circumstances, should we not try to engage, as rapidly as possible, in the stabilisation force troops from countries that have not so far been engaged in the conflict, so that we do not put ourselves in an apparently divided role?
The Prime Minister: That is a perfectly reasonable point. We do not want UK troops to remain there in the long term. They are there simply to perform certain duties that they may be called on to perform, and they may be the only ones who can do that at the moment. There will be not only US and UK troops, but troops from other countries which have been part of the coalition; for example, France and other countries that have been involved already.
In the medium term—while the United Nations exercise is, hopefully, taking increasing control—it is entirely sensible that we involve other countries as well. Obviously, discussions are going on about what type of force could help in this situation. As I said in my statement, we need to be able to work alongside the Afghan military commanders to ensure that stability is restored to the country. We are well aware of the sensitivities there, and it is important that we take account of them.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As a Member of Parliament who has been to Afghanistan and seen the
872
way in which the people there are repressed, may I ask my right hon. Friend, his coalition and the United Nations to make sure that it is not only the Afghanis who are liberated, but the women, too?
The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is right. Some of the people who are rejoicing most visibly today are the Afghan women who will no longer have to suffer quite appalling repression. Under the Taliban regime, they had no proper education and were excluded from many walks of life. Also, as I know from talking to women who have been in Afghanistan, they suffered the most brutal repression, including physical beatings for anyone who did not obey rules that are, on any basis, grossly unreasonable and wrong.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I wholeheartedly endorse what was said earlier about the United Nations. What does the Prime Minister envisage in terms of the United Nations intervention? Is it to involve a form of protectorate or trusteeship while the building of a broad-based representative Government goes ahead in Afghanistan? I also fully share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that there will now be a huge increase in the amount of humanitarian aid going into the country.
The Prime Minister: It is envisaged that the UN will help to facilitate the coming together of the new Afghan Government. That is the sensible limit of its ambition there. We shall, of course, try to step up the humanitarian aid now—although, in my view, it is only because of the military action that we are able to get the humanitarian aid into the country.
Joyce Quin: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he work with his coalition partners to try to ensure that, under any post-Taliban regime, the drugs trade does not start up again? Will he also update the House on the important financial measures needed to tackle the flow of funds to terrorists, particularly given that the Taliban received such large sums from terrorist sources?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has raised two important points. On the drugs trade, what we shall do in helping with the reconstruction of Afghanistan is make it clear that we want Afghanistan to develop farming—of proper agricultural produce, not produce for the drugs trade—and business, so that they can grow again in a legitimate way. That will take some time, but as I was told when I was in Pakistan a few weeks ago, Pakistan used to have a very active drugs trade but it closed it down with the help of measures taken with the international community. So it is not impossible for a country that has been involved in drugs to shut down its drugs trade, and we must work to ensure that Afghanistan does that.
In respect of financial measures, we need first to make it clear to countries that have been somewhat lax in enforcing their laws on financing terrorists that we shall not tolerate that. Secondly, we must tighten up provisions on money laundering and the disclosure of information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been working on that and there has been international agreement at an EU level and, I am sure, at other international levels.
Patrick Mercer: I congratulate the Prime Minister and our armed forces on the efforts made and

873
the successes enjoyed. However, may I enjoin him to look carefully at the specialist reservists? More than a month ago, 150 were called for, but so far only 13 have volunteered. Can measures he taken to encourage and protect them further with legislation?
The Prime Minister: We shall do what we can in that regard. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is immensely important that we do everything possible to acknowledge the contribution that has been made. There are practical issues that we need to get right, but I am sure that with good will and discussion we can do that.
Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister has rightly condemned excesses by the Northern Alliance in retribution, which is now going on in Kabul and other cities. What influence and pressure are being put on the Northern Alliance to cease those activities? How quickly can the UN command take over, so that it is clear that the Northern Alliance is not running the show, but somebody else is? In analysing the whole situation, will he encourage the US Administration to sign up to the International Criminal Court convention so that we have a future based on law rather than solely on the use of military force?
The Prime Minister: This country's position on the International Criminal Court is clear; America's position is up to it. Irrespective of any court's existence, the military action would still have been right. We have made it clear to the Northern Alliance that we want no reprisals or revenge killings against the civilian population. In many ways, that has happened to a lesser degree than people might have expected. Of course we want to ensure that the UN is as effective as possible in the interventions that it makes.
Mr. John Burnett: Events in Afghanistan, and over many years, have emphasised the importance to this country of British forces' expeditionary capacity. I agree with the Prime Minister that our armed forces are second to none and that, furthermore, they must have the best and sufficient equipment and ships. Currently, we have two assault ships and only one helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean, which is in refit. Will the Prime Minister consider urgently the ordering of a second helicopter carrier so that one is always available?
The Prime Minister: To answer the hon. Gentleman plainly, I am not in a position now to give him assurances on that; the armed forces Minister is beside me and I have no doubt that he has heard what was said. We currently have, I think, one of the largest naval programmes ever. However, I shall have to leave the hon. Gentleman's specific representation to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Donald Anderson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the problems of victory, however great, are infinitely preferable to the problems caused by defeat? As we turn from the speed of the military advance to the political track, could he give the House an update on the draft resolution that is now being debated at the United Nations? What will it say, for example, about security? Could he also be a little more clear about the
874
British forces that are on 48-hour stand-by? When they go—with French, German, Italian and Spanish forces—under whose command will they be?
The Prime Minister: The difficulty is that we have not yet decided the precise nature of the command because we have not yet finalised not only what our troops but what other troops will do. Obviously, I hope that the House will understand that the situation has moved very fast in the past 48 hours. The requirements, too, are moving very fast. We may now be able to go to parts of the country that we could not go to before, and we may no longer need to go to other parts of the country where we thought that we might be required. Very many issues still have to be decided.
As for the United Nations resolution, it is obviously important that we get the most broad-based regime possible and that the international community—which has been remarkably solid in the action that has been undertaken—remains solid. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) is entirely right in saying that the problems of having been effective in Afghanistan are far more welcome than the problems that we might have had otherwise. I think that, if we do this in the right way, it opens up the possibility of making real progress not only in Afghanistan but in many difficult areas of the world.
Since I have been in the Chamber, I have received the good news that at Doha a new round of World Trade Organisation negotiations has been launched, which is a very important development. I understand that the agenda for the trade round has been agreed. It would have been difficult to foresee that success even a short time ago. However, immense work has been done and there is far greater will in the international community to try to solve some of the problems facing us. That trade round will be important to world trade and to our economy, even though it may seem very distant to jobs and living standards here on the streets of Britain, because if we manage to get the trade round under way, it will open up new prospects for our business and for investment. It will also hugely help some of the poorest countries in the world.
Sir John Stanley: Although I greatly welcome the military progress that is being made, does the Prime Minister agree that the collapse of the Taliban in itself does not necessarily constitute any reduction in the terrorist threat? Will he therefore assure the House that there will be absolutely no let-up in the intensity of the efforts being made both nationally and at the United Nations, under the British ambassador's chairmanship, to strengthen our national defences against terrorism and deal with those individuals who may be conspiring to commit the next act of terrorism before they are able to engage in another act of mass murder?
The Prime Minister: I agree with that. It is important that we recognise that the closing down of that terrorist network is not complete. We do not know, for example, what planning it had put in place even before 11 September. Although I doubt that it is able to plan much at the moment because of the position it is in, we simply do not know what it may have done prior to 11 September or immediately

875
after the acts of 11 September. It is important that we do not relax our guard for one instant in the fight against terrorism here and abroad.
Richard Burden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the progress that has been made in the past 48 hours and his emphasis on aid and the need to ensure that Afghanistan has a Government in whom all the people of Afghanistan have a stake. I also welcome his comments on the suspicions about the west that sometimes exist in parts of the developing world. That was why he was right to go to the middle east. Does he agree that, if our words are to be taken seriously, we must redouble our commitment to bring a just peace to the middle east and show that our commitment to United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 is no less than our commitment to other United Nations resolutions relating to other parts of the world?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important, if we possibly can, to restart the process—the search for a durable peace in the middle east. I have no doubt at all that that is important. I also have no doubt at all that the process should be based on the two fixed points of principle that we have talked about over the past few weeks. One is the state of Israel—secure and confident in its own borders, accepted by its Arab neighbours and accepted in its right to exist by its Arab neighbours. The second is a viable Palestinian state where the people can live together, side by side, in justice and equality.
I am sure that whatever happens over the next few weeks and months, at some point people will have to come back to the relaunch of that process, and there is no better time to do it than now.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister find time today to pay tribute again to Squadron 39, the reconnaissance squadron based at RAF Marham? Is he aware that it is currently based in Oman, and experiencing extremely tough, gruelling conditions in the desert there? Day in day out, they are flying over theatre, taking aerial photographs and risking their lives. They are very, very brave men.
Is the Prime Minister also aware of concerns about defence expenditure when the conflict has come to an end? Will he do all he can to ensure that our armed forces are properly funded in the future?
The Prime Minister: I am delighted to pay tribute to the work of Squadron 39, and indeed to all others that have been involved in the action. Reconnaissance in these circumstances has of course been a dangerous and difficult mission.
As for defence spending more generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have now had the first real-terms rise for many years. What this conflict has shown, once again, is not just the strength of our armed forces in terms of what they can do by way of defending our country, but that they are an enormously important part of Britain's standing in the world and of what we can do. As I have often said, I think that our defence forces
876
are invaluable in themselves in defending our country and doing the traditional work of defence forces; but they are also a very important part of this country's foreign policy.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the supply of humanitarian aid and the deployment of the United Nations force will continue even after the formation of the next Afghan Government, on a long-term, structured basis and not just as a short-term answer to the current situation, to allow the people of Afghanistan to lead a normal life?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. We will ensure that that humanitarian commitment is there for the medium and the long term.
I read my hon. Friend's article recently—I think it was in The Observer. I thought that his argument constituted the best defence of why we are taking this action, and why it was important and right, irrespective of one's faith—Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu—for the action to be supported. I thought that the article was one of the best things I had read throughout the entirety of the conflict.
Tony Baldry: Way back in August, the United Nations co-ordinator for Afghanistan reported
"what we are seeing unfold in 2001, which will without doubt continue through the first half of 2002, is not only a catastrophe. but also a gradually cumulative humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions. Conflict, drought. displacement, grinding poverty and human rights abuses add up to a deadly combination, a chain reaction of misery upon misery."
Did the Prime Minister note that?
It is important always to realise that under the Taliban, way back, there was going to be a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. Can the Prime Minister assure us that, long after the television cameras and the journalists have disappeared from Afghanistan, the United Kingdom will continue to provide humanitarian and development aid for the restructuring of that country?
The Prime Minister: I totally agree that that is the test of our commitment. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to point out that this is a humanitarian crisis that was going on long before 11 September, partly for natural reasons but partly because of the appalling nature of the Taliban regime. It is important that we stay with the commitments we have made, and recognise that helping Afghanistan to become a stable and secure partner in the region is not merely in the interests of people in Afghanistan but—as we can see from what happened as we let Afghanistan decline and descend into chaos—in our own interests too.
Mr. Win Griffiths: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that, in addition to the relief and apprehension that we all must feel, as expressed by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, there was joy in my heart and that of many others on Friday evening to hear that there had been movement on the ground to signal the beginnings of the end of the Taliban? I feel really happy that, so far, the movement has been very positive in getting rid of the Taliban and setting the scene for the delivery of aid and the development of a future far better than anything that Afghanistan has had over the past 30 years.

877
Will the agenda that my right hon. Friend laid out so persuasively at the Labour party conference and here in London this week now become a focus for the United Nations, to deal with the major problems not only of the middle east but of many other areas in the world, such as, to mention only two, Zimbabwe and Sudan?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that most people will have welcomed what has happened in the past few days. The military success on the ground allows the political and humanitarian work to proceed in a much more coherent way. That is important and we must build on it. The challenge, however, is still formidable on both fronts—political and humanitarian—and there is no point in disguising that.
On the broader global agenda, I hope that we can make progress. We are working very hard with African countries on the new Africa initiative. It is very important to ensure that, by the time of the G7/G8 summit next year, we have a viable plan for economic and political development in Africa, led by Africa itself. The concept of partnership is there, and it should be seized on. I hope that, today more than ever before, people understand that international issues can be domestic issues, too.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Following the answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), does the Prime Minister agree that those who have been crying out for humanitarian aid should be leading the van of thanksgiving for the successes that have happened, because if the Taliban had remained in power, the people who really needed help would not have got it?
Will we equip fully for winter conditions our forces that will be in Afghanistan?
Is the Prime Minister convinced that the al-Qaeda network has not moved out? What about the suggestion that bin Laden himself may have moved on to Somalia? Can we have an assurance that there will be no pulling back and that international forces will continue to pursue him until they bring him to justice?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: it is only because we have been able to secure places on the ground militarily that we can put in the humanitarian aid where we need to.
Our troops will be properly equipped for anything that they may do there.
We believe that Osama bin Laden and the main al-Qaeda network are still in Afghanistan. It is true that, prior to 11 September. various parts of the organisation and terrorists connected with it were in different parts of the world. That is why it is important that we ensure that, wherever they are, they are hunted down. They have shown by their acts how dangerous they are.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I thank the Prime Minister for his timely statement. In the light of what he has said, will he reconsider, even at this late stage. the perceived necessity for clauses 21 to 27 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which we are to debate next week, which allow for imprisonment with neither charge nor trial? Precisely why is it thought necessary to preclude any appeal to any court on matters of fact, by way of either habeas corpus or judicial review?
The Prime Minister: I think that I can answer those questions. I am afraid that we believe that it is right to
878
take those powers for the reasons that I gave to the leader of the Liberal Democrats earlier. The choice is simple. There is no doubt at all that there are suspected terrorists—I have dealt with such cases myself—who have entered this country who cannot be deported to their own countries because of legal decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which are binding on this country irrespective of whether the European convention has been incorporated into British law. Those people have been released here, even though in some instances the courts have accepted that those people were involved in terrorist offences and were plotting more. There are not many of those people.
We must present evidence to the appointed commission, which will be headed by experienced people—lawyersand we will have to present it in private, because of its confidential nature. It will be a small number of cases, presented in circumstances in which we genuinely believe that our national interest is at risk or that of other countries. There is no alternative, other than saying, "That's fine, they are going to be let out, can stay here and do what they wish to do." There is no alternative to that.
The second reason why it is important that we take this action is that the one question I have found impossible to answer when having conversations with other world leaders is when they say to me, "You want us to join this great coalition against international terrorism, but you have people in your country who want to commit acts of terrorism in our country, and you are doing nothing about it." I have not yet found a convincing answer to that and I genuinely believe that it is right, in very specific circumstances, to take exceptional action. If we do not do that, we will put our own people at risk. The people who would abuse our laws and hospitality would put many more people at risk, because they have no compunction about what they do. Secondly, if that small group of people get away with being here and plotting their acts of terrorism, with nothing being done about them, they make life a lot more uncomfortable for the vast majority of asylum seekers who come in through the proper immigration procedures and who deserve to be treated well and with respect.
Mr. Michael Weir: The Prime Minister said in his statement that part of the troops that may be deployed in 48 hours is 45 Commando, which is based in my constituency. I am pleased to see that the mission will be, at least initially, a humanitarian one, but is the Prime Minister aware of reports this morning that both the former president and former king of Afghanistan are travelling to Kabul, possibly to vie for power? I noted that the Prime Minister said in his statement that he had links at all levels with the Northern Alliance and although I do not expect him to give me any details of discussions, can he assure me that discussions with the Northern Alliance have been held and that it agrees with the need to deploy troops, whether from the UK or the UN, in those areas that it has recently seized from the Taliban, so that there will be no problem once the troops have been sent to Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to 45 Commando Royal Marines and the work they do, which is ery important. I do not think that any one can give guarantees in this situation, but it is correct that we are in discussion with all the different parties in Afghanistan and the work

879
is being co-ordinated and led by the United Nations. The best chance of success is in the efforts being made by Mr. Brahimi, who is the designated special envoy for the United Nations. I believe that he can be successful, but I emphasise again—I hope that I have done so sufficiently this afternoon—that the military conflict is not yet over, because our objectives have not been achieved, and the humanitarian and political challenges are formidable. However, the fact that they are formidable does not mean that they do not have to be overcome.

Point of Order
4.39 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know better than anyone in the House that it is one of Parliament's sacred duties to defend the freedoms that are enjoyed—freedom of speech, of association and of religion—including the freedom to be tried before being detained. You will be aware that on Monday an order will be discussed, probably after 10.30 pm, that pertains to that last precious freedom. Unless the procedures of the House are adjusted—and it is within the Government's power to do so—that order will be debated next Monday but will not be voted on until Wednesday. It will be subject to a deferred vote.
Many of us feel that deferred votes are important, particularly after the way in which the business of the House was abused last year. None the less, there must be certain items that the House feels are of the utmost importance and deserve a vote immediately after the debate. Will you use your usual channels to find out whether appropriate means of reaching a decision on this matter can be found and a vote taken immediately after the debate on Monday?
Mr. Speaker: I have no powers in these matters, but the hon. Gentleman will know who does. He should take the matter up with the appropriate Minister.

Motor Vehicles (Prohibition on Use of Hand-held Mobile Telephones)
4.40 pm
Janet Anderson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a motor vehicle; and for connected purposes.
I was inspired to move this Bill by a councillor in my constituency. Councillor Geoff Cheetham, who serves the Eden ward on Rossendale borough council and who asked me, "When are you MPs going to do something about people talking on mobiles while they are driving?"
There can be no hon. Member who has not at some time witnessed someone at the wheel of a motor vehicle who is at the same time conducting a conversation on a hand-held mobile telephone. Indeed, there may be hon. Members who have committed what is already technically an offence under sections 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I am pretty sure that I am one of them. Historically, the Government have argued that the legislation is wide-ranging enough to include mobile phones as the highway code already contains in paragraph 127 advice on driving and using the phone. It states:
"you must exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Never use a hand held mobile phone or microphone while driving."
I believe that in the long term it is right to consider a generic offence to cover the use of mobile phones while driving and any other technologies that may emerge in the not-too-distant future. That view is supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety. Indeed, a similar law was enacted in the state of New York as recently as 1 November this year. New York is the first US state to enact such legislation, but more than 30 other states are reported to have introduced similar legislation during this year. There are also moves in the United States to introduce a Bill to impose a national ban on the use of mobile phones while driving.
In New South Wales too, there is now a law that states quite explicitly that the driver of a vehicle must not use a hand-held mobile phone while the vehicle is moving. Korea has now followed suit and I understand that the Government of the Irish Republic are considering doing the same.
Some may argue that our present laws are sufficient to deal with this problem, but I believe that we know from our daily experiences that they are not. As recently as July this year the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents called for a specific offence to ban the use of mobile phones while driving. It called for new legislation to make it crystal clear that mobile phones should be switched off while drivers are at the wheel.
ROSPA estimates that there have now been at least 16 deaths on British roads in which a mobile phone has been implicated, and that this could be the tip of the iceberg. It is only when someone is killed that the problems associated with mobile phones and driving are highlighted as there is no specific offence related to mobile phones and driving. It is therefore impossible to keep track of how often they are a major factor in accidents. It is possible that hundreds of accidents may be
882
caused by the use of mobiles and that that is going unrecorded. Text messaging is the latest craze and poses a new threat to road safety.
A brief report in The Observer of 8 July stated:
"One of the most alarming sights on our road is a driver, mobile phone crooked in shoulder, chattering endlessly, oblivious to other traffic. Inevitably accidents occur."
Cars are struck, and people are run over. Driving and phones can kill, as US academics made clear four years ago when they found that mobile telephone use made accidents four times more likely. Research in the United States also claims that to speak on a mobile telephone while driving is as dangerous as drink driving.
New York has had enough and has outlawed the practice. I believe that it is high time we did the same because no one, regardless of how competent a driver someone claims to be, can hold a phone, dial a number, conduct a conversation and be in complete control of a car or lorry. It is simply not the same as having a conversation with a passenger or listening to a tape or the radio. It takes less than a split second for a lapse in concentration to result in an accident. It must therefore be made crystal clear to drivers who insist on behaving in this way that they endanger the safety of the public generally, and their own safety too.
That is why I am seeking leave to introduce this Bill today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Janet Anderson, Mr. John McFall, Ms Bridget Prentice, Mrs. Betty Williams, Jim Dowd, Mr. Paul Keetch, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Siôn Simon, Andy Burnham, Lawrie Quinn and Barbara Follett.

MOTOR VEHICLES (PROHIBITION ON USE OF HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES)
Janet Anderson accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a motor vehicle; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 50].

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)) and Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
That—
1. The matter of the Pre-Budget Statement and its implications for Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
2. The Committee shall meet on Wednesday 28th November at half-past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) and to consider the matter of the Pre-Budget Statement and its implications for Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))—[Mr. Kemp.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 28th November at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee—[Mr. Kemp.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill

    Clause 1
    EXCLUSION OF CANDIDATE SELECTION FROM 1975 ACT
    4.48 pm
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
    '(2A) This section applies to arrangements made by a registered political party which, in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area, confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male candidate but only if such candidatures are the subject of an assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates, including their relationship with that specific geographical area.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
    '(2A) This Article applies to arrangements made by a registered political party which, in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area, confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male candidate but only if such candidatures are the subject of an assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates, including their relationship with that specific geographical area.'.
    Mr. Lansley: On Second Reading, the Bill received a welcome across the House. It was rightly said that the Bill was short and relatively simple, but important. I support it, and the amendments are not intended to reduce that support.
    On Second Reading and in Committee many Members applauded the fact that the Bill is permissive in intent, but by switching off the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 it allows the discretion given to political parties to be used to do various things. It became increasingly clear to me in Committee, and I hope that it will become clear to other right hon. and hon. Members, that the Bill runs the risk of reintroducing to this area of law and practice by political parties many of the uncertainties that arose from the Jepson case in 1996, and we would do well to remove them.
    Amendment No. 4 is designed to apply to Great Britain and amendment No. 3 to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. Amendment No. 4 would set a limit on the circumstances in which positive discrimination may be exercised in favour of women. It would ensure that when a single member was being elected for a specific geographical area—that would generally mean individual Members of Parliament elected for a specific Westminster constituency or, in local government, single members elected for a ward—while a woman could be given preference in the selection over a man who had equivalent merits, all the candidates for the post, including men, should be subject to an assessment. Account should be taken of the candidates' personal circumstances, including their relationship with the

    885
    specific geographical area. It may not necessarily be obvious, but the effect would be to exclude the application of all-women shortlists in parliamentary constituencies. Men would no longer be excluded from consideration for selection by political parties in areas where they live, regardless of their merits.
    On Second Reading, when I was, frankly, less informed than I have become, I argued that although the Bill switched off the provisions of the 1975 Act that apply to the selection of candidates by political parties, it might none the less become subject to intervention by the courts on the strength of the adoption of the new equal treatment directive, or even the old one. The Minister confidently assured me that as the measure applied to elections and not to appointments, that would not be the case. However, in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "I cannot give an absolute guarantee because the European Court of Justice could ultimately decide the question differently … However, even if the court decided that candidate selection fell within the equal treatment directive, the hon. Gentleman—
    the Minister was referring to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is in his place—
    "will be aware that measures under the directive and the treaty … allow for positive action."
    He said later in that short debate:
    "We expect political parties to take legal advice before proceeding".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 27.]
    I do not doubt that the Minister was being both prudent and accurate, but in doing so he highlighted the problem to which I partially referred on Second Reading and which we explored in greater detail in Committee. If a court held that the equal treatment directive applied, it might apply to the measures adopted by political parties—the test of proportionality. That test was summarised in a commentary on the European Court of Justice ruling in Abrahamsson and Anderson v. Fogelqvist in July 2000, in which it was held that it was
    "permissible to confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent merits to a male competitor, provided that the candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates."
    I hope that it is clear that the language chosen for the amendment rests directly on that used to express the test of proportionality that a court might choose were it to apply the equal treatment directive to positive action measures taken under the legislation.
    When I questioned the Minister in Committee, he said that he wanted to make it clear that
    "providing the remedy is proportionate to the wrong that it is seeking to address, political parties should be able to introduce measures such as we have discussed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 28–29.]
    In that debate, the right hon. Gentleman, regardless of his confident declarations on the inapplicability of the equal treatment directive, was none the less contemplating the possibility that under the Bill political parties would have to act in a proportionate manner. Most of us would want to do so, but the question is, if political parties—in this instance the Labour party—go down that path, will it be regarded as proportionate by a court?
    The Government maintain that the judgment applies to a post, but not to the selection of a candidate. I am still not persuaded by their argument. If the Jepson case demonstrated anything, it was that the selection of
    886
    candidates by political parties effectively puts those parties in the position of qualifying bodies under section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act. By extension, I see no reason why a court, in assessing whether people receive equal treatment when taking up a vocational activity or occupation under the directive, would not hold that the selection of candidates is integral to the process of securing employment.
    The purpose of the amendments is pre-emptively to apply a test of proportionality to the positive action that the Bill will enable political parties to take, thus removing the uncertainty about the extent to which they can take action. They will then no longer need to undertake expensive legal inquiries and test cases, with all that they entail, to establish the law on positive action of this sort.
    It is not only the equal treatment directive that might impact on positive action measures. If I have read the notes to the Human Rights Act 1998 correctly, protocol 12 to the convention—I do not know whether the Government intend to sign it—which creates a freestanding right to equality looks to a right of member states to take
    "measures to promote full and effective equality, provided that there is an objective and reasonable justification for these measures".
    A court might regard such a test—of objective and reasonable justification—as being similar to the proportionality test. In those circumstances, the European Court of Human Rights might, separately, look to some of the jurisprudence in the European Court of Justice in order to establish the relationship between those principles and their application to these matters.
    5 pm
    If the Bill is designed to permit political parties to take positive action and the Labour party wants to pursue all-women shortlists, it runs the risk of legal challenge. Although I have not succeeded in tempting the Minister on this point, it would none the less be helpful if he were to tell us whether the Labour party wants to re-introduce all-women shortlists.
    The Liberal Democrats debate whether or not they want such shortlists. The hon. Member for North Cornwall may be able to tell us a little more about that. He certainly seemed to imply that although the Liberal Democrats might be tempted in the direction of all-women shortlists, they were deterred by the possibility of legal challenge. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, like Conservative Members, wonders whether a legal challenge would ensue and doubts that this is a sensible measure for a political party to pursue.
    The purpose of the amendment is to remove uncertainty about a legal challenge. It is also intended to establish that there should be limits—never mind the European legislation—to the extent to which positive action is taken by political parties in order to secure greater equality.
    Two wrongs do not make a right. In this case, the wrong that we want to remedy—the lack of balance in representation in the House—will not be appropriately remedied if we introduce another wrong by discriminating in such an overt and extreme fashion against men. That would occur in specific circumstances—for example, where a man wanted to be selected as a candidate for the area in which he lived.

    887
    We are talking about only those circumstances in which somebody wants to be selected as a candidate for the area where they live and where that constituency offers them a unique opportunity for election.
    Joan Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many people who seek selection are also able to do so in an adjoining area? Often, they are in a borough, county or area where there is some choice of seats. It is not always, or even usually, a specific and sole seat for which a person wants to be selected. Does he agree that many Members—of whom I am not one—have never lived in their own constituency?
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as she takes me to the points that I wanted to make, although I am not with her on her latter point. I live in my constituency and am happy to do so. However, I understand her first point: people who want to be elected to this place do not necessarily seek selection as a candidate in the place where they previously lived or currently live. Indeed, I did not live in South Cambridgeshire before I sought selection as a candidate for that constituency, but that fact does not remove the principle. For example the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor)—he is no longer in his place, but he put a question at Prime Minister's questions—secured election as an Independent Member of Parliament. He secured election to the House on behalf of the place where he lives.
    One might argue that the hon. Gentleman would not be affected by the measure because it deals with political parties, but is not the basis on which political parties select prospective Members of Parliament increasingly being influenced by the fact that they live in a particular place? In previous debates, the former Home Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, seemed to think that selection by political parties was all and that the merits of individual candidates were nothing, but that is not true of individuals. It was not true at the last election, and it will not be true in future, so it will be more important for political parties to select candidates who have links with the specific geographical area that they wish to represent.
    Joan Ruddock: According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, if a seat has historically been held by one political party and all the evidence suggests that it will not change hands, a prospective Conservative candidate who lives in a traditionally Labour-held area could never become a Conservative candidate with any hope of success. Is he saying that those men should never consider becoming a Member of Parliament?
    Mr. Lansley: No, I am not, but it is perfectly reasonable and entirely logical for people to seek selection as parliamentary candidates in the place where they live, and if they cannot do so they may well seek selection elsewhere.
    Under what circumstances should we introduce a form of discrimination—a bar on such people seeking selection as a candidate in the place where they live? If I were a Conservative living in a strong Labour constituency the
    888
    electorate would impose that bar on me. That is fair enough. In those specific circumstances, the hon. Lady advocates—but I oppose, under the amendment—telling a man that whatever his individual merits he is not good enough because a woman has to be selected for the constituency. He might have lived in the area for a long time, served as an elected representative and been the leader of the local council.
    Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for many years women have sought selection in their home areas but have not succeeded, as the composition of the House shows? Does he agree that, in effect, that has been a bar to women becoming Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Lansley: I have no doubt that that is precisely why the experience of all political parties is that such discrimination has occurred. The amendment is not intended to dispute the fact that women of equivalent, or substantially equivalent, merit to men have not been selected when they should have been. The issue is that Labour Members want to use the Bill to disbar a man from being selected even where he has far greater merit as a candidate by virtue of his specific personal circumstances, his relationship with a constituency and on the grounds of any objective assessment. That is wholly undesirable. In fact, not only is that inequitable, but it runs the risk of bringing into disrepute the positive action that needs to be taken to redress the lack of representativeness in the Chamber.
    It is clear that my party needs to take further action, and in my view some of our ideas will make a substantive difference. If we were to contemplate introducing women-only shortlists, the process of trying to secure greater representation by women would be brought into disrepute. That is one of the reasons why we did not succeed in the past. The Conservative party sought women-only shortlists, but the Labour party's actions in the early 1990s were seen as inequitable and discriminatory and they brought into disrepute the adoption of such measures by the Conservative party.
    Joan Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the Labour party introduced all-women shortlists, it took a regional approach, introduced the lists on the basis of consensus and applied them to only half its target seats? Contrary to his suggestion, our approach was not draconian. It applied to only a very few seats.
    Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. The issue is what the Bill should allow people to do. If the hon. Lady is saying that it should not be used to create all-women shortlists that apply in a specific constituency, I agree with her. Furthermore, if she is suggesting that the Labour party should be able to introduce all-women shortlists on a regional basis through some form of twinning, I point out that twinning would still be acceptable under my amendment.
    Perhaps the hon. Lady and the Minister will support the amendment because it would allow twinning to take place. If a couple of constituencies worked together, they would assess the merits of a man for selection in a particular geographical area—namely either of those constituencies—but they would select one woman and one man. That would be permissible under the amendment, as such an approach

    889
    would be proportionate. However, it would not be proportionate for a man who on any objective basis is better qualified to be debarred from selection for an individual constituency.
    Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that, under his amendment, twinning would be acceptable, but I am not sure that he understands how it worked in reality. I understand the process because I am from Wales. Two constituencies would be twinned with one another and they would agree to be represented by one man and one woman. Under the system, a man could have double or treble the votes of a woman and a woman could have double or treble the votes of a man, but that person still might not be selected. The right of individual constituencies to select who they wanted was taken away. A constituency might overwhelming vote for a man or for a woman but, because of the system of twinning, its choice could be thrown out and a person of the. other sex brought in.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his view balances those expressed by other Labour Members. However. I do not go as far as he does. It is possible to devise a system of twinning that is proportionate and that would be acceptable under the Bill as amended by amendment No. 4. He refers to the votes cast in an individual constituency—that is the determining factor in any system adopted in the Conservative party—but that is not the same as an assessment of the merits of the candidates and their specific personal circumstances.
    Under my amendment, a court would not only have to consider the preferences of members of an association—that is one factor—but assess whether a candidate who had a close relationship with an area and had substantially better merits than anyone else but who had been debarred from selection had had his merits objectively assessed.
    Virginia Bottomley: I am in my hon. Friend's debt, because he has tabled an important and interesting amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that some hon. Members have not understood the significance of the amendment because—I do not wish to be provocative—the Labour party's tradition is much more authoritarian? The trade union culture of imposing rules and regulations is very different from the Conservative party's tradition, which is much more liberal, much more permissive and much less likely to be imposed from the centre. In the past, the Labour party had a serious problem because it was so dominated by the trade unions. It was very male and very white. However, using a pretty authoritarian approach, it changed the rules for women, and denied the interests of individual members in doing so. Is it not the different traditions that explain why Members on either side of the House have misunderstood each other?
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I expect that our different traditions do explain some of the attitudes prevailing in each party. The response of the Labour party to any problem is to create a central directive that will remedy the matter. The intention in the
    890
    Conservative party was always to try to work with the most relevant local organisation in order to secure the objective through consent.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Lansley: I will give way when I have responded to my right hon. Friend.
    The objective in the Conservative party will always be to work through consent and in a democratic process involving members of local associations. I know that if my party responds positively to the legislation, it will do so in a way which none the less retains the ability of a constituency association to judge individual candidates on their merits. The system about which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I spoke earlier this year would allow a man who had a specific connection with a geographical area and substantial merits leading to his possible selection as a candidate in that constituency still to be considered by the association, regardless of shortlists.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) has been patient. I give way to her.
    Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Setting aside the extraordinary intervention by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) about the structures and mores of my party, and given that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in attempting to preclude my party from advancing the cause of women and has been silent about whether his party has any plans at all for the advancement of women, may I return him to his point about regional links? The Bill will apply also to candidates for the European Parliament. Can the hon. Gentleman define the piece of the infinitely larger European constituency with which any potential candidate would have to prove a specific relationship before selection?
    Mr. Lansley: I should chide the hon. Lady. I am the last person who can be accused of being silent about what my party should do. Some months ago, before the Bill was presented to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and I set out from our personal perspective what we thought should be the position. I cannot say what my party will do. That will be decided by the board of the Conservative party, not by me. In due course my hon. Friend will no doubt chide the Minister who I am confident will not tell us what the Labour party will do using the powers under the Bill.
    On the hon. Lady's substantive point, selection of candidates for the European Parliament would not be affected by the amendment. It would remain, as the Bill intends, entirely open for gender balance to be achieved in selection. The amendment makes it clear that the
    "section applies to arrangements made by a registered political party … in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area".
    We are indeed speaking about a specific geographical area, but the amendment refers to the election of a single representative for that area, whereas in all regions there are a number of Members of the European Parliament.
    Llew Smith: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understands how the twinning system worked in Wales

    891
    for the election of candidates for the National Assembly. There could have been a situation in which someone had spent their entire political life in a particular constituency, held high office in the local council and achieved the overwhelming vote of that constituency, but still would not have been elected or put forward as a candidate because he or she was the wrong sex. is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is acceptable under his amendment?
    Mr. Lansley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There was some discussion in Committee about the twinning arrangement. Clearly, I have not participated in such an arrangement, as it has not been applied in our party. None the less, if the hon. Gentleman is looking to my amendment to remove the possibility to which he refers, I must say that I am not sure whether it would serve him. In the circumstances that he describes regarding a twinning process, men in the two constituencies would have had the opportunity for an assessment to be made of their specific personal circumstances and of their relationship with the geographical area in question. The simple fact that a larger number of members vote for a man would not necessarily convince a court that that should override the positive action measures that are being taken generally to deliver an outcome. There must be a subjective judgment about what is proportionate, and there is no way out of that.
    My point is that it is disproportionate and unacceptable, prior to any assessment of whether a man can be considered, to apply to any constituency a bar on even assessing a man. In those circumstances, under all-women shortlists, a man would not get to a point at which members could vote for him at all. He would simply be excluded from consideration in individual constituencies. Those are the circumstances that the amendment is intended to prevent.
    Julie Morgan: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports the principle of twinning in general. Certainly, my experience of twinning was different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith). Throughout Wales as a whole, the proportion of women representatives achieved by twinning has been a big boost to Welsh politics, so I want to put it on record that the twinning arrangement has been good for Wales. I cannot understand, however, what he has got against the principle of dividing the seats in a region between men and women, which seems a very proportionate response to ensure that we have equal numbers of candidates.
    Mr. Lansley: For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that the hon. Lady should interpret my remarks as meaning not that I am in favour of twinning, but that I would interpret my amendment as not precluding the possibility of twinning being one of the positive action measures that could be taken under the legislation. We know that the purpose of the legislation is permissive, but the question is what limitations the amendment would set upon that power. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) rightly probed that issue and sought to identify the limits. It is precisely the situation that the hon. Lady described in her last point that I am setting out to try to prevent—a situation in which, in an arbitrary fashion,
    892
    a given number of constituencies are told that somebody cannot be considered because he is a man, before any assessment has been made of the merits of male candidates who live in those areas. Those are the specific circumstances that I am trying to preclude.
    Fiona Mactaggart: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is contesting that the amendment is required to bring us into conformity with European legislation. If that is the case, however, it means that that European legislation exists and is binding, and that the amendment is otiose. I am also concerned about his suggestion that somebody's local connection is the key issue. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has a local connection, although it cannot be said to be more local because he talks about it all the time, and he used to have exactly the same degree of connection with Basildon. I am concerned that the amendment suggests that locality, rather than any other qualification, is appropriate for an assessment. I think that he is wrong about that.
    Mr. Lansley: There are two points. First, on the latter point, the hon. Lady elevates the local connection as if it were the only part of the assessment. The assessment relates to specific personal circumstances, including a person's relationship with a geographical area. The point of focusing on that aspect is not that it is the connection that matters most. It is not necessarily that merit, but one of the lesser issues, that matters most. However, if it is important to individuals to be elected for a specific geographical area where they live, all-women shortlists could bar them arbitrarily. That is unacceptable.
    The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) should check the second point with Labour Front-Bench Members. I do not believe that the Minister will consider the amendment otiose simply because the equal treatment directive or the Human Rights Act 1998 will make the test of proportionality in the amendment redundant. I think that the Minister will argue otherwise.
    The Minister's view may be wrong. I am not a lawyer. and perhaps I am the last person to judge precisely whether he is right, but I suspect that he is wrong. Given the merit of the argument and the undesirability of arbitrarily barring men from standing for constituencies where they live, it may be better to include the test in the Bill rather than leave the measure open to legal challenge, which will mean uncertainty and cost for the political parties that try to deal with it.
    The hon. Member for Slough appeared to be under the misapprehension that the measure applies only to selecting parliamentary candidates. It also applies to other bodies, but not to the European Parliament because we are not elected in single-member constituencies. Single-member wards are common in local government. The residence qualification for a local authority is based on living not in the ward but in the local government area.
    Whatever we believe about the desirability of a Member of Parliament's prior local connection with a constituency, it is incontrovertible that such a connection is important for local government candidates. Introducing all-women shortlists to create gender balance, but, in the process, saying to a man who lives in a specific village in, for example, my constituency, "You cannot stand for

    893
    election as district councillor because your ward will be used to achieve gender equality on our local council" is unacceptable.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but he appeared to introduce an interesting variation on the definitions in the amendment. He said that a local government candidate, who seeks election for a single-member ward, would not necessarily have to live there, but would have to be resident in the local authority area. How does he justify that in the context of the amendment, which clearly does not allow for such an exception? It would provide that the relationship of a candidate who seeks election for a geographical area had to be
    "with that specific geographical area".
    Mr. Lansley: I am not talking about a legal qualification for selection. Local government and representation legislation provide that. One should be able to assess a candidate's merits. In the context of a local government election, the candidate's residence in the area will form a substantial part of the assessment. An assessment of a candidate's personal merits should also be made. That cannot be done if a political party imposes all-women shortlists on specific wards in a local authority area to try to achieve gender balance.
    Joan Ruddock: The hon Gentleman is beginning to confuse us all. He appears to place incredible emphasis on exactly where a male candidate lives. He asks why a man should not be able to stand in a specific area. What is the hon. Gentleman's motivation? He has absorbed the culture of the favoured son who serves on the council and is being prepared for a seat. That is the implication of his defence of the amendment.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I like to think that I am being generous in giving way, but at this point, rather than my being confusing, it is the hon. Lady who is deliberately confused, unless the Labour party is going to introduce all-men shortlists and debar women under this legislation. I am talking about men because, in reality, all-women shortlists are the measure that the Labour party appears to be contemplating.
    If the Labour party is contemplating all-women shortlists in specific local authorities to secure gender balance, it might say that, in the election of a member representing a single-member ward, men should be debarred from standing in that ward. I want to enable the Minister to be clear about this. A man could, therefore, be debarred from standing in the ward in which he lived, even though he might meet the local authority's residence qualification and could therefore seek election in that local authority area, somewhere other than where he lived. That seems an absurdity.
    It has been entertaining to test the resolution of Labour Members to pursue all-women shortlists, even under what appear to be untenable circumstances. They appear to be set on that course, even though it seems undesirable. The pursuit of equal treatment is important and necessary, and the Conservative party can and should achieve greater equality in its selection processes. We know, although
    894
    Labour Members may not, that to do so by using overt discrimination against men, even in exceptional circumstances, is a denial of our democratic processes of parliamentary representation and of representation in local government.
    This legislation should not be the way forward for political parties. Regardless of whether the measures would, in practice, be circumscribed by the courts in terms of a test of proportionality similar to the one that I have described, hon. Members should accept the amendment to demonstrate that they are willing to apply such a test to the measures used to deliver this worthwhile objective. I look for support in the House.
    Mrs. Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for moving the amendment. I suspect that when he stood up to do so, he little thought that he would be on his feet for quite so long as he was because of the number of interventions that he took, especially from Labour Members. I found some of those interventions a little strange.
    One of my hon. Friend's reasons for tabling the amendment is the importance of ensuring that whatever action is taken by political parties under the Bill—when it becomes an Act, as we assume that it will—it will be action that can be supported not only under this legislation, but under European Union legislation. As we have discussed in Committee, action taken by the Labour party is the most likely to be challenged, because the Labour party is the party most likely to move down the route of all-women shortlists, as opposed to the more proportionate attempts at positive action favoured by other political parties.
    It is necessary to probe this issue because when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, most of us expected political parties to be free, under the permissive nature of the Bill—which I entirely support—to introduce whatever positive action they chose to achieve the aim of getting more women selected and then elected to the House and to other elected bodies.
    However, the Minister brought us up a little sharp, as did the Under-Secretary of State in Committee, with a number of references to the importance for political parties of seeking legal advice before taking action. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire quoted the Minister directly when he said that the Government expect political parties to take legal advice before proceeding. There was a considerable point in the Minister making those remarks and, I suspect, some feeling in respect of his own party because, as many hon. Members have said, if any action is to be challenged, it is most likely to be that of creating all-women shortlists. The party most likely to go down that route is the Labour party, so the Minister's party is most likely to be subject to a legal challenge and to require that advice.
    I want to explore an aspect to which my hon. Friend referred but which has not been dealt with as explicitly as other aspects. It concerns the way in which the European Court of Justice has interpreted the law surrounding positive action. The Amsterdam treaty, which amended article 141(4) of the treaty of Rome, provides for positive action to be taken in circumstances where no gender balance exists in a particular area of representation. However, in interpreting the law in a number of cases,

    895
    the European Court of Justice has tended to suggest that the positive action system should not be so rigid as to bar men totally from access to particular posts.
    My hon. Friend made a valid point when he questioned the Minister on the differentiation between a post and selection for election as a.representative on an elected body. I looked at cases that tested the original 1976 European Council directive. We should look not just at the Abrahamsson case, but at others such as the Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen case—I apologise to the House for my pronunciation—in which the court ruled that
    "on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment … as regards access to employment, vocation training and promotion, and working conditions precludes national rules such as those in the present case which, where candidates of different sexes shortlisted for promotion are equally qualified, automatically give priority to women in sectors where they are underrepresented".
    In the Hellmut Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen case, the court made specific reference to the phrase that my hon. Friend has put in amendments Nos. 4 and 3. It said:
    "where there are fewer women than men at the level of the relevant post"—
    the court was looking at public sector service—
    "and both female and male candidates … are equally qualified … priority be given to promotion of female candidates"—
    under various conditions—
    "provided that:
    in each individual case the rule provides for male candidates who are equally as qualified as the female candidates a guarantee that the candidatures will be the subject of an objective assessment which will take account of all criteria specific to the candidates".
    That was again tested in the case of Georg Badeck and others v. Land of Hesse. The same phrase was used in the judgment:
    "provided that that rule guarantees that candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of the specific personal situations of all candidates".
    The issue was tested again in the case that we tend to quote in this context because it was the most obvious challenge to positive action—the Abrahamsson case. It was held in that case that an automatic preference for an inferior candidate solely because of sex was precluded by the directive, and that application of article 141(4) of the treaty of Rome did not overturn that particular judgment.
    As all those cases show, the issue of positive action cannot be addressed in isolation. The issue is set against the background of the need objectively to assess a candidate's specific qualifications and personal situation in relation to the positive action that is being sought. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) have therefore specifically included in amendments Nos. 4 and 3 the words
    "specific personal situations of the candidates".
    There were many interventions and much discussion on the issue of locality and whether a candidate should be required to live in a specific locality. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made clear, and as anyone reading the amendment would see, the issue of a relationship with a specific geographical area may be encompassed by the "specific personal situations" mentioned in the amendments; it is not an exclusive requirement.
    896
    The distinction may deal with the point that the Minister made in his intervention on the legal qualifications to stand for local authority office and the requirement to live in a local authority geographical area as opposed to a specific ward in that local authority. Nevertheless, living in a specific ward may be part of the "specific personal situations" that could be taken into account in assessing the candidates.
    Various hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), in various interventions—have speculated on what the Conservative party will do. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, he and I are perhaps the two Conservative Members who least deserve to be challenged on the issue by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate because we have proposed to our party a positive way forward on the issue. Although it is, of course, for our party to choose which route to pursue, we have made positive proposals.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Fareham for tabling their amendments, which are intended to test the issue. Case law sends a message on the issue. If the legislation does not incorporate amendments to reflect that case law, it is possible that a political party—we assume that it will be the Labour party—that chooses all-women shortlists will find that its all-women shortlists are challenged. I apologise to hon. Members as I have not seen the reference, but I understand that Mr. Jepson, who took the Labour party to an industrial tribunal when it first introduced all-women shortlists, has said that he would consider challenging, on the basis that I have outlined, the party's decision to reintroduce such lists.
    In a sense, therefore, the amendments have been introduced to help the Government to operate the legislation and to address the issue of what positive action the political parties can take. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. If he is concerned about the possibility of legal challenge to certain types of positive action, as there most likely will be to all-women shortlists, he should very carefully consider accepting the amendments. They attempt specifically to ensure that the legislation clarifies the types of allowable positive action, thereby reducing the likelihood of legal challenge to political parties that try to take such action.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Member for South. Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has done us a favour by moving amendment No. 4, if only because this debate allows us to test on the Floor of the House some of the proportionality issues that we did not fully explore in Committee. He described his amendments as a pre-emptive test of proportionality. I think that such a test is valuable and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
    It is slightly ironic that, in legislation that is short, simple and permissive, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire wanted to be more restrictive. Having described the Labour party as much more centralist and directive, he tried to represent the Conservative party as more decentralised and liberal. That is not a description that I recognise, having fought the Conservative party for over 30 years.
    Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has done us a service by raising the overall issue of proportionality. As was constantly made clear in Committee, it must be true that

    897
    however permissive the legislation is in allowing the parties to adopt their own response to the situation that they face, they must do that in a proportionate manner. The Minister was constantly telling us that.
    As both earlier speakers said, at several points in Committee—and, indeed, on Second Reading—I was at pains to point out that there was already evidence suggesting that the Bill was likely to cause more legal wrangling rather than less. Knowing the sort of expense that the parties might have to incur, I felt that the House had a responsibility to try and pass legislation that was, as far as possible, invulnerable to excessive legal challenge and interpretation. The issue of proportionality is clearly the key issue in terms of interpretation.
    5.45 pm
    My normal response to legislation is this: the simpler it is, the less likely the lawyers are to get at it. That is why I have a real problem with the amendment. For reasons with which the Minister may, I suspect, agree, it is likely to cause more trouble rather than less. The references to legal advice made this afternoon and in Committee are entirely appropriate—and, as I said on Second Reading, Labour is likely to be first in the dock. Although the party may have access to a certain distinguished lawyer at No. 10 Downing street, which may give it preferential terms, the process will still be expensive. Nevertheless, I think it right for us to consider the question of balance.
    We should pay particular tribute to all the preparatory work done by Meg Russell and the constitution unit. Meg Russell's 2000 and 2001 reports set out, in effect, the options open to Parliament and Government. I am struck by the fact that she even anticipated this issue in dealing with the Badeck case, mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). She stated succinctly—how beneficial it is to learn of the feminine attitude to these matters:
    "This case found that national rules which gave priority to women when men and women had equal qualifications were acceptable in areas where women were under-represented provided that the rules guaranteed an objective assessment taking account of the specific personal situations of the candidates."
    The amendment is very much a response to that.
    The Minister has a problem. He must try. either here or in the other place, to give some assurances that his party—and perhaps others, in due course—will not run into difficulties. I think that we were led down a false path, and that the issue of locality was a red herring. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire did not bring out as vividly and as succinctly as the hon. Member for Maidenhead the inclusivity. as opposed to exclusivity. I happen to live about 500 yd outside my constituency, but I have spent all my adult life in Cornwall. Indeed, where I live used to be in my constituency before the boundary commission came along and moved the boundary. Does that still give me a geographical connection?
    I feel that the amendment lays too much stress on that issue; there may well be others just as important. For that reason, I suspect that, in due course, we shall find that the amendment does not really achieve what we wish to achieve. That, however, does not absolve the Minister of his responsibility to deal with a specific problem that his party and, no doubt, others may face. I hope that he will give us reassuring answers.
    Mr. Mark Hoban: I support the amendment, which, indeed, is in my name as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
    As was established in Committee, there is widespread support for the Bill's principles, and its attempt to improve women's representation in Parliament. It is important that we get it right, however. The amendment reflects the series of cases, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), that established the basis on which positive action could be taken.
    One of the cases that gave rise to the Bill was Mr. Jepson's legal action against the Labour Party. In Committee, there was much discussion about whether a legal challenge to the Bill could succeed. In this month's edition of The Parliamentary Monitor, Mr. Jepson raises his head again, saying that he believes the Bill will
    "collapse if it could be proved it is a vehicle through which to introduce controversial all-women shortlists. He dismissed government claims that there will be no legal problem providing 'positive action is proportionate to the issue'."
    He went on to say:
    "Excluding all men or all women has no element of proportionality. The government is claiming this is positive action when it is actually positive discrimination. There is a difference—positive action, such as advertising in women's magazines, is legal—whilst positive discrimination is not."
    Clearly, those issues will be dealt with in a court of law if he challenges the Bill, but it is important to introduce some proportionality now.
    I want to refer to my experience in finding a seat before the general election and the issue of people with a local link. Contrary to what Government Members have said about their experience of being selected, I know that some people put forward their name to represent solely one seat, and no other. When I was selected to fight Fareham, there were people who wanted to represent only that seat.
    In taking any measure to increase the representation of women in Parliament, we should be careful not to exclude people who want to represent the seat in which they live or for which they have another criterion that makes them especially suitable. In my area, someone with a military background might be highly appropriate to stand in seats in Portsmouth or Gosport, but might be precluded from doing so by the adoption of a particular kind of shortlist.
    We need to have an objective assessment of who should be considered for adoption as a candidate and there should be guidance in law to ensure that parties can frame their procedures to take proportionality into account. It is not Parliament's job to frame laws that will lead people to incur unnecessary legal costs because the drafting has not taken into account the full range of circumstances that might exist and the framework of recent European Union legislation. The cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead set a clear trend: we must consider objectively the merits of all candidates when taking positive action, and we should not prefer a female candidate if all the other criteria match. All candidates should be able to set out the criteria that make them suitable to represent a seat.
    David Winnick: I apologise for coming in late, but I have found the arguments fascinating and that is why I have stayed. I understand the reasons for the amendment, but are the hon. Gentleman and his

    899
    colleagues saying that preference should be given to local people? It seems that one of the factors in the amendment is that those with local links would be given preference, and I would have thought that most undesirable.
    Mr. Hoban: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have benefited from being here to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who gave a clear exposition of the case. We are saying that, in any attempt to redress the gender imbalance in the House, we should not prefer female candidates in all cases, and that where candidates are ostensibly of equal merit, we should think about objective criteria that make one of them more particularly suited for the seat. That is not solely limited to the fact that someone is local, but that may be a factor. We are talking about selecting a candidate for one seat, not a group of seats, and we need to be proportionate in our response.
    Mr. Lansley: Selection for parliamentary constituencies often consists of national candidates and local candidates. We do not say that local candidates should be given preference: the issue is whether they are to be debarred from being considered.
    Mr. Hoban: Indeed. We should certainly not, by any measures that we take to change the composition of the House, debar local candidates from selection. That is the crucial point of the amendment. The Minister should take it seriously, to ensure that the Bill is not subject to legal challenge once it is enacted.
    Glenda Jackson: I felt I must speak against the amendment and Opposition Members' arguments, which have demonstrated a failure to remember why the Bill was introduced in the first place. It is not dedicated to absolute equality of opportunity: it is designed specifically to redress the gross inequalities that prevail against women who believe that they have a part to play in the political life of their country and find that the selection processes—even before we get to a decision by the electorate—preclude them from stating their case.
    It took the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire a long time to get around to the basis for the amendment, which is to stop the Labour party adopting all-women shortlists, but that is something for the Labour party to decide. If we waited for the proposals that the Conservative party has been pushed kicking and screaming into acknowledging that it has to introduce in relation to the selection of women, there would be even fewer women on these green Benches.
    There is something fundamentally confused in the thinking on this subject, as we saw when the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) referred to the necessity of selecting candidates with a military background for constituencies close to his. Such thinking may be replicated throughout the House. The obvious response is that he does not seem to realise that there are women in our armed forces—some in positions of great responsibility. The assumption is that if it is military it is automatically masculine.
    Mrs. May: If the Bill is enacted as it stands and the Labour party adopts all-women shortlists that are successfully legally challenged, what will the hon. Lady say to Ministers in her Government?
    Glenda Jackson: I can only say to the hon. Lady that I was selected from an all-women shortlist, before the idea of making that part and parcel of my party's structure was voted for overwhelmingly at two successive party conferences. There was no challenge. It was a decision for the individual constituency party.
    In my experience, when I was privileged to campaign in seats where women had been selected under our all-women shortlist procedure, admittedly the individual constituency parties were somewhat chagrined in the first instance that they had been chosen for this groundbreaking development in equality for women, but their subsequent response, without exception, was that they had never seen candidates of such quality and their real difficulty was in selecting only one from four excellent women. With one exception, I believe, all the women selected to fight the election in 1997 were returned in 2001, because they are excellent.
    It is interesting that the hon. Lady automatically presupposes that a legal challenge would win. I see no reason to suppose that, but if it did, presumably my party, along with others, would have to exercise a little more imagination. The basic issue is that the Bill was introduced specifically—with, up to now, the unanimous support of all political parties—to redress the gross inequities that still work against women who want to participate in the political life of this country, be it on local or central Government level. That is why, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall certainly oppose it.
    6 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: We have had a long and somewhat convoluted debate on what has been almost universally recognised as a short and simple Bill. The danger is that we will lose touch with the fundamental issue and we would perhaps have run that risk but for the appropriate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) that concluded the debate, in which she rightly drew attention to the main reason for the introduction of the Bill—to remedy the chronic under-representation of women in all our elected bodies, including the House, local government, the European Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament.
    The fact that the imbalance is less in the devolved bodies is an interesting reflection of the fact that when the parties were selecting candidates for those bodies, the issue of gender balance was on the agenda and specific positive measures were taken to try to ensure a more balanced outcome than happens at Westminster. In terms of the representation of the parties at Westminster, the fact that we have a significantly larger—but by no means adequate—representation of women on. the Labour Benches is the result of the measures that were adopted by our party before the Jepson judgment. Those measures allowed a substantial increase in 1997 from the position of the early 1990s. As I commented in Committee, the fact that post-Jepson it was not possible for similar measures to be used by the Labour party when selecting candidates for the 2001 general election meant that the

    901
    representation of women on the Government Benches was marginally less than before. The momentum had been lost.
    The issue is crucial and one that we cannot avoid. It requires urgent action, and the Bill will achieve that. When the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) moved his amendment, he said that the Bill risked reintroducing the uncertainties caused by the Jepson judgment, but he is wrong on that point. The Bill is designed to remove the uncertainties caused by Jepson, which, as I have already conceded, led our party not to adopt similar measures—to those we had adopted before 1997—before the 2001 general election. It is precisely for that reason that we have framed the Bill so as to make it possible for political parties to adopt measures that will make it more likely that the outcome—in Committee, we focused on outcomes rather than on processes—would be a significant increase in the proportion of women candidates elected. The Bill would achieve that aim, and the amendment would not be helpful. Indeed, it would be disadvantageous in several ways.
    Before I deal with the disadvantages of the amendment, I shall discuss the legal issues which rightly pre-occupied many of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I am aware that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire drew extensively on the Abrahamsson case in the way he presented his case and in the very wording of his amendment. I remind the House that that case was brought in relation to the appointment of a candidate to an academic post. Indeed, all the cases from the European Court that have been cited in the course of the debate have all been related to the appointment of candidates, not the selection of candidates for election. As I stated on Second Reading and in Committee, in our view there is a clear distinction, in terms of European law, between the appointment process and the selection of candidates for election. Our view is that the latter does not fall within the ambit of Community law.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred, appropriately, to the report, "Making It Happen", by Meg Russell from the constitution unit. The report, which relates to the Bill, makes a relevant and well expressed point that:
    "it is extremely unlikely that the European Court of Justice would (as UK courts have done with respect to the Sex Discrimination Act) outlaw positive action for women in the party selection process by ruling that it is covered by employment provisions. The European Commission has twice stated a clear belief that selection of candidates by political parties does not fall within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive, in answer to questions in the European Parliament. If the court were to rule that EU law extended to candidate selection by parties, this would create chaos for those many parties all around the EU which use quota systems. As described in Appendix 2, strict positive action measures are now even enshrined in domestic law in some states such as France. In practice it would be politically impossible for the European Court of Justice to overturn these systems, and it can easily be argued that selection of candidates for political office is outside the competence of the EU."
    In the course of our considerations we have obviously referred to people expert in such matters, and those comments are apposite and should guide our judgments.
    If we were to accept the amendment, we would introduce a limitation into the Bill that is unnecessary and which would limit political parties' freedom to decide for themselves how they wish to use the provisions of the Bill. We have stressed throughout that the Bill is
    902
    permissive and the amendment strays away from that by seeking to dictate limits on the kind of measures that could be considered by political parties. It is not appropriate for the House to impose such specific restrictions on the way in which political parties order their selection criteria. It is right that the legislation should allow political parties to adopt measures that seek to meet the objective for which the Bill was introduced, but it is not right to prescribe in detail the measures that parties can adopt.
    Mr. Lansley: The Minister has sought to reassure us about the application of European Union law, but he has not touched on the question of the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and whether the argument about objective and reasonable justification for the measures, as a departure from what would otherwise be equal treatment, might apply.
    Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, we covered that ground on Second Reading and in Committee, but I shall present the issues once again. The first principle is that the concept of candidate selection differs from the concept of appointment of a candidate to a post of paid employment. I have already made that distinction. The second issue, which we have considered in some detail, is one of proportionality. Measures that seek to remedy a wrong must be proportionate to the wrong that they seek to redress. We have considered that principle and the Bill contains a sunset clause so that the impact of any measures that might be introduced under the Bill can be reviewed at a future date when the imbalance that exists in all elected bodies in this country will have been reduced, if not eliminated. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that issue of proportionality when he considers the issue of human rights.
    As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have made it clear that I do not intend to be drawn into the respective merits of specific measures that political parties might take under the provisions of the Bill. Parties themselves must have their own discussions, and decide internally which measures, if any, they wish to use. It was a little rich of the hon. Gentleman to chide me on the fact that I would not suggest what measures the Labour party would introduce when he made it clear that he could not say what measures the Conservative party would introduce, even though he and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) have been almost lone voices in their party in pressing for positive measures to further the cause of women's representation.
    Mr.Lansley: The record will show that I was not chiding the Minister, but predicting that he would not be able to say what action the Labour party would take. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) chided me for not being able to say what the Conservative party would do. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I have aired our views and if the chairman of the Labour party were here, we might chide him. As he often shares the Front Bench with the Minister, perhaps he will have something to offer us.
    Mr. Raynsford: I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the chairman

    903
    of the Labour party, will indeed want to consider the scope that the Bill, as and when it is enacted, offers our party and all other parties, and introduce appropriate measures to increase further the representation of women here and in other elected assemblies and local authorities where the Labour party puts up candidates.
    I will reiterate: our view is that the candidate selection process falls outside the ambit of EU law and, as such, the equal treatment directive does not impose limits on the measures that political parties can consider. With that in mind, I firmly believe that the Bill should remain permissive and set no limits.
    The amendment, apart from potentially confusing a Bill which is essentially simple, risks making it much more prescriptive, and we disagree with that.
    The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also referred to geographical areas. I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall that that was something of a red herring. Although we would not want to underestimate the fact that people may wish to select a candidate who has a local link, that is only one of many factors that parties will want to take into account. The hon. Gentleman made the very valid point that he does not fall within the remit of the amendment because he lives just outside his constituency.
    Mr. Lansley: I am sorry to be tedious and intervene again, but both the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and the Minister are wrong. The amendment is perfectly clear. It refers to a connection with a specific geographical area; it does not state that candidates would have to live within a specific geographical area and it is only one factor that might be taken into account in considering a candidate's personal situation. I would be grateful if the Minister would not misrepresent the amendment even if he objects to it.
    Mr. Raynsford: I was simply picking up the points that were forcefully argued by the hon. Gentleman. Many of his hon. Friends referred to the merits of parties being able to select people who lived within certain areas. If he is now saying that his amendment would not achieve that effect, what is its purpose if it would allow someone to use the obscure reference that they happened to have passed through the constituency of South Cambridgeshire in 1937 to claim a local connection with the area?
    Mr. Tyler rose—
    Mrs. May rose—
    Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Maidenhead.
    Mr. Tyler: In order to avoid further misrepresentation and confusion, let me say that I understood the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. However, this discussion illustrates how dangerous it would be to go down this path. It happens that my ancestors arrived in Cornwall in 1066. Is that a connection with the constituency?
    6.15 pm
    David Winnick: Can the hon. Gentleman prove it?
    Mr. Tyler: Yes, I can. Is it more significant than the fact that I was not born there and I live 500 yd outside my constituency? Adding extra burdens to legislation will inevitably lead us to such confusion while keeping it simple will, I hope, keep the legal bills cheap.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for North Cornwall, who has told us a most interesting fact about his own ancestry, makes an extremely sound point and I could not put it better. The amendment would add an unnecessary complication which would add all sorts of arguments over interpretation and ambiguity to what is in essence a simple Bill.
    Mrs. May: I merely wish to point out yet again that the Minister's suggestion that the amendment stands or falls on the issue of locality and whether somebody has a relationship with a specific geographical area is a complete misreading and misinterpretation of the amendment. As he has already acknowledged, the amendment is specific in that it would introduce into the Bill wording that has been used in the European Court of Justice cases which specifically say that positive action can be taken in certain areas, provided that there is an assessment that takes account of a specific personal situation. That is what matters. A relationship with a specific geographical area is merely one factor that could, but would not necessarily, be included in that assessment.
    Mr. Raynsford: I understand clearly what the hon. Lady is saying, but I put it to her ever so gently that Conservative Members have placed considerable emphasis on the geographic issue and that is why I have tried to respond to it. I take her point that the wording relates to cases that have been heard before the European Court of Justice, but I reiterate that all those cases related to employment. It is our contention that employment is a different issue from candidate selection as quite different criteria apply. That is the key point.
    The amendment also refers to personal situations. We had an interesting debate in Committee in which the hon. Lady quite rightly and very graphically described the kind of problems that arise in the selection process when women are asked inappropriate questions.
    Introducing the concept of personal situations risks legitimising exactly the undesirable questions that she was at pains to criticise in Committee. If it is legitimate to delve into personal situations, how can it be wrong for parties to start asking awkward questions about women's availability to carry out certain functions or the impact of family responsibilities on their ability to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities or other such entirely inappropriate questions which the hon. Lady and other members of the Committee said made it very difficult in some cases for women candidates to be selected?
    I am afraid that the introduction of this concept into the Bill would tend to legitimise a process that we all accept is undesirable.
    Mr. Lansley: I am afraid that this is the Minister's most bogus argument so far. By switching off the application of the Sex Discimination Act 1975, the Bill

    905
    opens the door to such a possibility which the Minister says should not be happening. In any case, the procedures applied by political parties should avoid that.
    Mr. Raynsford: I have to put it to the hon. Gentleman, however, that if he put that concept into the Bill, it would be impossible to prevent the kind of malpractice that he and his colleagues rightly criticised in Committee.
    For the following reasons, therefore, I believe that the amendment is inappropriate. It is unnecessary because it misconstrues the impact of the cases in the European Court of Justice that hon. Members have quoted. It unnecessarily complicates a Bill which is clear and simple and it introduces potentially undesirable elements which could work against the Bill's very purpose. We do not believe the amendment is necessary or desirable and I trust that the House will reject it.
    Mr. Lansley: I take entirely the Minister's point that complicating the Bill should be avoided in all possible circumstances. If it can be simple, so much the better, therefore in this context everything rests on the validity or otherwise of his assertion that the equal treatment directive and the application of European Union law will not impact on candidate selection and that. effectively, EU law will not apply to the activities of political parties. I hope that he is right. It would be reasonable for the Government, and subsequently political parties, to try to sustain that in courts and to try to keep the EU out of the legislation. I suspect that he will be wrong and that, as in so many of these issues, European legislation will creep in.
    I do not accept the Minister's other arguments about introducing undesirable features. The amendment would have done precisely what it was intended to do and in a targeted fashion, but as the Labour party appears set on allowing itself the opportunity of all-women short lists, there is little benefit in pressing the amendment to a Division. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall was generous enough to say, I hope that by raising the issues in this way, we will at least have exposed to the House and perhaps to a wider public that what might otherwise seem a simple Bill raises important issues that people should examine carefully. They should understand the nature of what is intended by the legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    We have heard some interesting and useful contributions during the debate, and there were many more in Committee. Women make up just under one fifth of hon. Members, and we all agree that that is not acceptable in 2001.
    The under-representation of women in politics at all levels requires urgent attention. Political parties must ask themselves why so few women successfully come through the selection process.
    Recent research by the Fawcett Society confirms that women face discrimination in the selection process. I shall not go into detail, as we heard enough evidence in previous debates. The lack of women in politics, however,
    906
    deprives our political processes of many important contributions; women have much to contribute in a huge variety of ways. They are grossly under-represented in the House, as they are to a lesser extent in other elected bodies, and all those bodies are the poorer.
    Since 1996, when the employment tribunal in the Jepson case ruled that the Labour party policy of all-women shortlists was illegal, parties have been wary of using positive measures to reduce gender inequality. The Bill is designed to remedy that problem and to give parties the confidence to use positive measures again.
    I repeat that the Government believe that all political parties must decide for themselves how to make use of this permissive Bill. We believe that it would be prudent for all parties to take legal advice about the measures that they propose to adopt before they put them into practice. That is not a sign that we lack confidence in the Bill. Offering that advice is a measure of the Government's prudence, and I hope that it will be accepted in that spirit.
    Political parties will have different views about how best to increase women's representation. The Bill gives them the freedom to decide the right way to proceed, but they must take responsibility for their decisions.
    I am delighted that there is broad commitment to the Bill's principles. Contributions to the Bill's consideration have been constructive, and its central tenet has not been questioned. No one doubts that something desperately needs to be done to reduce the imbalance in the numbers of men and women elected.
    I hope that the Bill will redress a fundamental imbalance and go some way towards making our democracy more representative, effective and reflective of the population at large. In the end, however, that will depend on outcome and what happens at the ballot box. We shall be able to judge the Bill's success only when we see what happens in elections to this House, local government, the European Parliament and the devolved Assemblies in the future.
    I hope that the measures taken by all political parties will increase substantially the number of women candidates, and that the electorate as a result will be in a position to elect many more women to Parliament and other elected assemblies in this country.
    I commend the Bill to the House.
    6.24 pm
    Mrs. May: I shall be brief, as we have already heard many contributions.
    I repeat that the official Opposition support the Bill's aim, which is to get more women elected to Parliament and to other elected bodies. We also support the fact that the Bill is permissive, and allows political parties to make their own judgments about the action that they should take to ensure that more women are selected, and then elected. In an earlier debate, the Minister rightly said that we were interested in more than the process of selection, and that the outcome of the Bill's enactment would be that more women would be elected to representative positions in elected bodies.
    The Minister rightly said that all political parties must ask themselves why so few women become elected representatives. We in the Conservative party have been doing just that. We are very aware that there are very few women on the Conservative Benches, and that our party must act to improve that.

    907
    Women must be encouraged to see election to this House as a career that is open for them to pursue. Showing that political parties are serious about enabling women to be elected to the House is an important part of the process of encouraging women to come forward for selection in the first place. If women outside do not see a significant number of women in the House, they will consider that the job is not for them, or that they will not succeed at it. If that is what they feel, they will ask why they should bother to go through the hassle and possibly even the trauma of a selection process that ends only in rejection.
    I pay tribute to all the women in my party who put themselves forward for election and go through that selection process. Many of them would make excellent Members of Parliament if they could succeed in getting elected. We support the Bill and want there to be more women in the House, but not for any tokenistic reason. We support it because it will enable us to take the positive action of our choice to ensure that women of talent—who would make a good contribution to the House and represent their constituencies well—are able to strengthen Parliament and improve our debates and our discussion of legislation. It is important therefore that we ensure that the Bill is allowed to proceed.
    The Minister said that many women feel discriminated against in the current selection processes. The MORI report on equal opportunities interviewed 400 female candidates, and four out of every 10 said that party selection committees favoured men over women. We want candidates in the future to be selected on their merits, and not because of their gender.
    I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said earlier, when he talked about the suitability of individuals for particular constituencies. I know that the actions of political parties are not a matter for the House, but I contend that my party—and I suspect others—needs to adopt a more professional approach to selecting candidates. Such an approach should take proper account of the skills needed by Members of Parliament, or by members of the other elected bodies to which the Bill applies. A more professional approach in that respect would also help constituencies.
    The job of a Member of Parliament has changed over the years, and political parties should reflect that change in their selection processes. We must recognise the different abilities that hon. Members need today, compared to what was required in the 1950s, or in earlier centuries.
    The Opposition support the Bill. It is important that women are given a proper opportunity to be selected to stand as candidates in the name of political parties and to gain election to the House. Women should not be debarred, effectively, from election to the House because the selection process discriminates against them.
    The Bill will enable each party to make its own judgment about what positive action to take. The Bill is permissive, and I welcome that. I support the aim of the Bill, which is to ensure that more women are elected to this House and to other representative bodies.
    6.30 pm
    Joan Ruddock: This is a night for real celebration, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister wholeheartedly on bringing forward the Bill and on having conducted our proceedings in such a helpful and consensual way.
    I have a particular interest in this matter because I was once a Minister with responsibility for women. At the time, there was considerable controversy over all-women shortlists, which were defeated by the tribunal judgment. Sadly, without a challenge—although I had hoped for one—the decision went against such shortlists. I was certain that our political party would return to type.
    There was also the difficulty of a possible challenge over twinning in Wales and Scotland in selecting candidates for the devolved Assembly and Parliament. Fortunately, with a great deal of pressure from Labour Members, particularly our colleagues in Scotland and Wales, those measures were passed. The all-women shortlists adopted by the Labour party for the 1997 elections and for the devolved Parliament and Assembly in the twinning procedure were hugely successful, not only in bringing greater numbers of women into our elected bodies but in bringing women's views and contributions to those legislatures in ways that had never been seen before.
    Sadly, many people regarded the presence of a greater number of women in this House as a means by which to totally transform it. That was never possible, but perhaps some of the aspirations that were dashed led to people believing that female Labour Members had not made as big a contribution as had been expected. The fact is that the women who came through the all-women shortlists have proved themselves to be superb contributors to the House and very popular in their constituencies. It has been pointed out that, with one exception, they were all returned at the last election. There can be no doubt about the worth of bringing women into this Parliament through the mechanisms that we have adopted.
    As I said, we were certain that the party would return to type. That is what happened in the selections that preceded the elections to this House in 2001. We must remember that, and accept that it can only mean that there is deep prejudice in the selection of candidates for elected office. That discrimination is against women and, of course, people from ethnic minorities. It is true of all parties. Only mechanisms such as those in the Bill will change that pattern of behaviour.
    For those parties that have not had the courage of ours, the challenge, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, is to find mechanisms that can produce the appropriate outcomes. Nothing that we have heard so far in our debates has led me to believe that, in selections for local government and Westminster, other parties have in mind mechanisms that will deliver. If we fail to deliver in introducing mechanisms that lead to proper outcomes, we will continue to have an extreme democratic deficit in this place.
    More than 80 per cent. of our Members are men. That cannot be effective representation. There are two ways in which groups can be represented—one is to have their own Members speaking for them, the other is to have Members speaking on their behalf. I know which option women would prefer, and I know which is most effective. If I can say that for my gender, I am quite sure that it is even more true for people of ethnic minority backgrounds.

    909
    The time is right. This is the 21st century, and we have to produce a Parliament that better reflects our population. That can be done only if our political parties enthusiastically grasp what I hope will become an Act and thereby offer them, and us, the opportunity, once and for all, to begin positively on the road that will end the democratic deficit on gender. Furthermore, although there is no such provision in the Bill, we must also deal with the selection of people from ethnic minorities.
    Again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who looks as though he might want to intervene. No, he is just encouraging me and listening with attention, for which I am grateful.
    I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) who, along with a number of her female colleagues, has made serious attempts to change the culture in the Conservative party. That change is long overdue and difficult to make. and I congratulate her on her efforts.
    This is an historic occasion. I hope that the Bill will be very speedy in its passage through the other place so that it becomes an Act in time for the new selections in our political parties.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. Tyler: I, too, congratulate Ministers on introducing the Bill. To echo the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), the Bill also has a number of godmothers, including the hon. Lady herself, and we thank them.
    Let me follow the hon. Lady by putting this in historical perspective. It has taken an awfully long time just to get this far. It is important to remember that women got the vote as long ago as 1918, when the first woman Member was elected to this House. It took until 1928, of course, for the restrictions that had previously been imposed to be removed. Until then, a woman had to be over 30, a householder, or wife of a householder—that must have stuck in the gullet—a university graduate, or rent property of a certain value.
    The Minister and other members who served on the Committee may recall that my mother appeared briefly in our proceedings. She is celebrating her birthday today, and I am not there to assist. She had to wait until she was 27, in 1928, to involve herself fully in the political process. Before then, she drove cars at Cornish elections and got excited about them, but she could not take part. Therefore, it is important to bring a sense of humility to the legislation. We are taking a step forward but, my goodness, it has taken a long time.
    We discussed outcomes on Second Reading and in Committee. We cannot be satisfied with the legislation if it does not produce results. That is why there is a responsibility not just on the parties to look at the legislation carefully but on the Government of the day and the House to monitor the success with which it is applied. I have frequently drawn the Government's attention to the fact that legal advice will undoubtedly be required by all parties. The Government owe it to the House, quite apart from individual parties, to ensure that the legislation is effective. That is why there is a role for Government legal advice.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who took part in proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, is unable to be here because this debate
    910
    coincides with our party meeting. I think that she would agree that women Members bring to the House an ability to be rather more succinct, sensitive and, occasionally, consensual than their male counterparts. I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will not take offence when I say that his 40-minute contribution this afternoon was admirably summarised in about eight minutes by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) from the Front Bench. Therefore, I intend to be as brief as I can to show that we all have a feminine side.
    The progress of the Bill in Committee has been a model of how best to exchange views in a consensual rather than a confrontational manner, and that is partly a result of the fact that the legislation is more permissive and less prescriptive. We need to study the way in which legislation is applied and it will stand the test of time better if it has that feature.
    The Bill also contains a sunset clause, which Members on both sides of the Committee recognised as being of real value. It will concentrate the mind of Parliament to look again to see whether the outcomes have been achieved, rather than simply letting the legislation sit on the shelf gathering dust and saying, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter if we're not getting anywhere."
    My leg has been pulled at various stages about the way in which the Liberal Democrat party conference approached this issue. Those who want to read the motion that was passed will find it in the Library guide to those proceedings; they will not then have to contribute to party funds by buying a conference report.
    Clearly, my colleagues were apprehensive about going so far as to put in place a system before the legislation was enacted, but we do not rule out the need for action in our party. Goodness knows, we are not proud of the fact that we have not succeeded in getting a reasonable proportion of women Members of Parliament—only 10 per cent.
    We have been much more successful in local government, and the Minister will recall that at the European elections we put in place positive action—zipping, as it was then called—with the triumphant conclusion that we elected five Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament of each sex. We achieved total equality. Since then, I am afraid, a number of other parties have lost Members to us and we have lost that equality, but that is the name of the game and I cannot complain. We recognise that this permissive legislation may well be required in our party and we welcome the fact that it has been left in a format that will enable us to make maximum use of it.
    There was only one element of the contribution of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that I would not want to endorse. I would look at the matter from a slightly different angle. It is very important that we all recognise that the Bill is not intended to favour women or to help them; it is intended to favour Parliament and the nation. I do not say that all women want women to represent them, but if Parliament is not fully representative of the majority

    911
    of the population and there are clear obstacles to effective representation of all parts of the community, that is a weakness.
    Joan Ruddock rose—
    Mr. Tyler: I am about to complete my speech, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. I want to be succinct and, in this respect, more female than male.
    Parliament as a whole will benefit from the way in which the legislation rolls out and the parties respond to it. As the hon. Lady said, there is a democratic deficit, but that is not a gender issue as such; it is a parliamentary issue. This Parliament is weakened by the fact that it is not as representative as it should be of all the community that we serve.
    6.43 pm
    Julie Morgan: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pleased to be a member of the short Standing Committee and by the all-party support for the Bill.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I think that this is a day to rejoice. Eventually, this legislation will transform politics in this House, so it is a historic day.
    I am glad that all the political parties have woken up to the fact that it is beneficial to have women in Parliament and at all levels of government to ensure, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, that our laws are better. That is the crucial point. We need women here to ensure that our laws are fully informed by different sections of the population. That is the ultimate end. We need women if we are to make better laws and we are taking a big step towards that goal today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on leading us so ably through the Standing Committee debates and this debate today.
    When we have resolved this issue, I would also support measures to tackle the under-representation of black and ethnic minority members at all levels of government. The National Assembly for Wales has no black or ethnic minority Members. That is the necessary next stage after this legislation.
    The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to the article in The Parliamentary Monitor about Dr. Peter Jepson, who challenged the Labour party's all-women shortlists in 1996, in which he said that if Labour proceeded with such shortlists he would put himself forward as a candidate in an all-women shortlist seat. That would paint an interesting picture in Wales—someone putting himself forward for such a seat—as I think that we may well adopt all-women shortlists. I am mystified by Dr. Jepson's attitude. He seems to want deliberately to wreck the plans of the party to achieve fair representation.
    It is interesting to think of all the women who were excluded from all-male shortlists for so many years. They found other ways to contribute to the community and Government, in all the different ways that women do contribute. We should remember the all-male shortlists that existed for so many years. On Second Reading, I said
    912
    that in Wales we have only had seven women MPs since 1918. We cannot get away from those facts, which is why I am so pleased that the Bill is proceeding today; I am glad that all the parties support it.
    It is right for the legislation to be permissive. Now, it is up to all of us to sort out this problem in our parties. I think that there is no option other than all-women shortlists or twinning, but the latter is difficult unless one is setting up a new type of legislature.
    Angela Watkinson: I visited Stockholm city council recently., which has just over 100 members, 51 of whom happen to be women. I asked what they had done to achieve that and was told that they had done nothing: it had happened spontaneously. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have a long way to go with our national, psyche and our understanding of equal opportunities and gender equality—but, happily, not in Upminster?
    Julie Morgan: I happily agree with the hon. Lady. Many systems used in the Scandinavian countries are of enormous benefit to women, for example the child care there, which I studied with the Welsh Affairs Committee. Many aspects of their societies are conducive to allowing women to progress. We need developments in all such areas too. The Bill alone will not achieve the representation of women that we want. We must tackle many other issues. For example, recent surveys have shown that women find it expensive to stand as candidates for Parliament. It costs a lot of money to put oneself forward to be selected. We must consider that issue as well as child care.
    This Bill is a good step forward, but it is only a step and there is a long way to go. It is up to individual parties to sort out where we go from here.
    6.48 pm
    Virginia Bottomley: I once more declare my interest as vice-chair of the British Council, which does a lot to promote and involve women in government throughout the world, and chair of a not-for-profit practice of headhunters, where much of my work involves finding talented women and encouraging them to put their names forward.
    In congratulating the House on reaching a conclusion, I must confess to an on-going note of disquiet, and I say that with some regret. I warmly commend my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and many others. They all know that, shortly after the 1997 election, I produced a paper on what the Conservative party should do to secure the election of more women Members of Parliament. I did so not because I thought it a matter of human rights and equality, but out of enlightened self-interest. It is clear that women are popular with the electorate. Many women have been chosen at by-elections, as I was, when selection committees think not, "Who is the favoured son?" but "Who is likely to win in difficult circumstances?". My message is: "If you want to win, choose a woman".
    Mr. Tyler: Has the right hon. Lady noted the gender of the candidates in the current Ipswich by-election?
    Virginia Bottomley: I have not, but I have noticed that, today, no woman Liberal Democrat MP has been in the

    913
    Chamber during our debates on the measure—nor, I think, on the last occasion when we debated this subject, which is fascinating.
    Mr. Tyler: Yes, there were.
    Virginia Bottomley: There were certainly none today.
    Many questions have been asked about the measures that hon. Members would take. I want energetic recruitment, mentoring, coaching and monitoring. I want best practice guidance. Selection panels should be required to undertake training and outsiders should monitor their activities. I want vigorous positive action.
    I should find an all-woman shortlist extremely invidious in constituencies—whether parliamentary, European or council—where there was only one elected representative. The person who most persuaded me of that was the late Baroness Seear—a most distinguished woman. She pointed out that once we say that there must be a woman, next we shall say that there must be a disabled person, an ethnic minority person, somebody aged over 60, or somebody in their 20s.
    Above all, we are elected to represent all the people, whether or not they voted for us, and whatever their gender, race or age. I find all-women shortlists, or indeed twinning, extraordinarily invidious. Were they to apply, I should have to think carefully about my interpretation of the role of a Member of Parliament.
    I remain concerned about why we should want such different arrangements for Members of Parliament compared with other occupations and professions. The Minister did not adequately address that point in his brief summing up on Second Reading, or in his remarks in Committee and the debate today. The point about redress through employment law is one element, but it is not a complete answer.
    The House will be aware that, at present, the civil service is, rightly, making a great effort to try to promote diversity, so that public servants reflect the Britain of today. I strongly welcome that, but few permanent secretaries are women and few come from ethnic minorities.
    The majority of medical students are women, but the majority of consultants are not. I gave an example on Second Reading—about which I have received an enormous amount of correspondence—of a primary school with an all-female staff and asked whether an all-male shortlist would be permitted. The answer is that it would not.
    The issues arise in other sectors. Last week, black police officers met in Manchester. There are real issues about ethnic minorities in the police force and the services. In social work, there is a real desire to appoint more black and ethnic minority social workers and inspectors. In all these sectors, positive action—legal or illegal—is under way. Coaching and mentoring are available. People are being encouraged to come forward. As long as an appointment is made on merit, people in the public services have become fairly vigorous—rightly so—in saying that the public face of those services should reflect the diversity of Britain today.
    I fail to understand why Members of Parliament are such a different case. We should reflect the diversity of Britain today. We should take all the steps taken by others and we should not be thought to be legislating for ourselves in a vacuum, as though we were blinkered.
    914
    Similarly, I find it difficult to support measures relating to women rather than considering other ways to make us look as though we were more representative of Britain. At a time when 40 per cent. of the electorate fail to vote, we are missing out. We are not registering with the public—whether that is about gender, or age, none of us really knows.
    I commend those who have worked so hard on the Bill. I worry whether the ends justify the means. It seems like a form of social engineering to treat politicians as a special case. I continue to find that disturbing, but I, with others, will continue to do everything in my power to encourage more women to come forward, more selection committees to choose women and more members of the electorate to vote for them.
    6.55 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I shall try not to disappoint the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) by being too long-winded on this occasion.
    In contrast to my earlier remarks, I do not want to cavil about the Bill, to question it or even to oppose it. As the Minister for Local Government and hon. Members will know from Second Reading, my intention is to support the Bill. I hope that my effort to amend it was understood as an attempt by the Opposition to strengthen and validate the purposes of the Bill.
    I share the questioning approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley). That is why I question the Labour party's desire to go all the way to women-only shortlists. The way in which the Government have structured the Bill suggests that we may be able to switch it off by 2015 and that there will have been a culture change: but how do we get to that point? Can we reach it without the imposition of women-only shortlists? Many Labour Members think that we cannot: Conservative Members think that we can.
    As my right hon. Friend said, such change is happening in other professions. She rightly drew attention to the fact that, in 1975, 16 per cent. of hospital consultants were women; at present, the figure is 34 per cent. More to the point, over 50 per cent. of those entering the medical profession are women. By 2015, it would not surprise me if more than 50 per cent. of consultants were women.
    Nineteen per cent. of the accountancy profession are women, but 45 per cent. of current entrants are women. Women make up 51 per cent. of current entrants to the legal profession. However, there is a difficulty—a culture problem. As a House, it is not merely the fact that, historically, we are overwhelmingly male, and that if those entering it are disproportionately female the balance will shift over time: we have to deal with the beam in our own eye. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) is in the Chamber and offers abundant evidence of the merits of women candidates, but she is the only woman among the 35 new Conservative Members elected in 2001. That is not remotely acceptable.
    We should have changed that situation and might have done so if more of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey had been taken on board. However, although I cannot go along with my right hon. Friend's view that measures such as recruitment, mentoring and training will be sufficient, there is a large gap between her proposals and women-only shortlists. That is the area of balanced shortlists.

    915
    As a party, we insist on going out from the centre and recruiting in the expectation that constituencies will be obliged to select from balanced shortlists. Given the nature of the system that we have adopted, even if constituencies do not deliver the necessary outcome, they will increasingly see more suitably qualified women candidates than men. By the expedient of not reaching the point where we insist that an individual constituency cannot consider the merits of a male candidate, we shall not undermine the case for the positive measures that we in the Conservative party should take. My hope and belief is that we can achieve the necessary change in culture relatively quickly and demonstrate that the form of discrimination by which some Labour Members seek to achieve that objective is counter-productive and unnecessary.
    At the risk of delaying the House for a second, I want to mention another issue. The Bill is intended to apply to a specific range of elections, and the Minister has made it clear that it will also apply to elections to the House of Lords. I look forward to that, not least because the House of Lords is intended to complement the House of Commons, yet in this respect it does not—only 16 per cent. of peers in the other place are women, as are only 22 per cent. of life peers created since 1997.
    Leaving aside elections, the White Paper provides that at least 30 per cent. of the new life peers will be women, yet in the same paragraph it states that at least 30 per cent. of those appointed will be men. By extension, if we start with 22 per cent. and the fact that at least 30 per cent. of the new appointments will be women, it will be many years, perhaps decades, before the House of Lords approaches anything like a gender balance under such a dispensation. That is absurd, because the House of Lords should recruit from the professions and the walks of life that are under-represented in this House. Talent could be brought into the House of Lords that has not been accessible previously in our law-making procedures through election to this House. That will, if anything, disproportionately involve women on the basis of historical experience and the current situation.
    I do not understand why the Government have not been bolder in the White Paper and said that, from the beginning, at least 50 per cent. of those appointed to the House of Lords will be women; nor why they have not made it clear that the Bill will allow political parties similarly to take positive action to secure the election of women to the House of Lords in due course.
    Finally, I have tried to work out what has restricted the selection and election of women to the House. I listened to a description of research into why something of a glass ceiling still exists in relation to the promotion of women in business and industry. There is probably a parallel, in that those involved in the selection of women to sit on the main boards of companies are not keeping up with those who genuinely select people on merit, as seems to be the case in the professions and with qualifications.
    Researchers concluded that men were, by and large, assessed on their potential. That happens in constituencies. where people look at candidates for selection, such as hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), and say, "This man will go far." However, women are selected on performance. Women candidates will be asked, "What have
    916
    you achieved? How can you prove that you are good enough?" We have to change that culture, and I hope that in the three-year run-up to the next election the Conservative party will use the Bill to change the culture and use women's potential to boost the standing of the Conservative party and the reputation of the whole House.
    7.4 pm
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am pleased to have a few minutes in which to contribute to the latter stages of the consideration of the Bill. It is interesting that we are debating the Bill on a day of very fast-moving geopolitical events. The question of female representation in a new Administration in Afghanistan has formed part of the discussions that have taken place today. That geopolitical context is pertinent to this debate, for General Musharraf reminded hon. Members at Westminster last week that a third of the Members of Parliament in Pakistan are female. We are contributing to the debate in the knowledge that the mother of Parliaments perhaps has a little catching up to do.
    I entirely take on board the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) about being adverse to the concept of social engineering, but I would say to her that the Bill is perhaps more about gearing up. In the same breath, I thank my right hon. Friend personally, because one of the first conversations that I ever had about embarking on a parliamentary career was with herself. The encouragement that I received set me on my course to the House.
    The purpose of these debates has been to refine the Bill and make it more robust. I pay tribute my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) for undertaking the lion's share of the work. I have read the reports of the debates in Committee, and I have felt that my hon. Friends have definitely borne the brunt of debating the workings of the Bill in practice. Many of the attacks that they bore in those exchanges were about history and the way in which things have been done in the past, but the fact that the Bill is permissive enables the political parties to look forward. Although what has gone before guides and chastens us, we shall see a great deal of change in every party as a result of the way in which we have chosen to interpret the Bill.
    The Minister said that he could not give an absolute guarantee about the robustness of the legislation if it were challenged in the European courts, but the right hon. Gentleman was a little churlish towards the Opposition, especially in relation to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the Government, with their greater resources and the civil service at their disposal, were surely better placed to undertake an absolutely thorough investigation into the legislation's robustness. However, the debate has teased out the fact that the Labour party is most likely to bear the brunt of the challenge. As other hon. Members have said, Dr. Peter Jepson has made an advance declaration of war on that point.
    I certainly should not like to conclude without paying tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has done over many years. It is relevant in that context to say that, not content with trying

    917
    to advance the cause of women at Westminster, she is very active in trying to advance the cause of women's representation in Afghanistan. That is a good illustration of how current political events tie in with what we are attempting to do in our own national Parliament. We will rise to the hon. Lady's challenge to achieve the outcome, which she describes as resolving the democratic deficit, of seeing more women on the Conservative Benches. That is the fundamental reason why we support this change in the law.
    We need to remind ourselves of the stark lesson that the overall turnout at the 2001 general election was only 59.4 per cent. Although there is no specific research relating the small number of women in Parliament to voter apathy, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that that is a very important factor. That is why we share the common goal of succeeding in attaining more women representatives at Westminster. We all have a duty to encourage them to come forward, and the Bill should tell women that we want them.
    7.8 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I concur with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has an enormous amount to celebrate tonight because of her inestimable role in securing the introduction of the Bill. My hon. Friend said that the Bill is a cause for celebration, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan).
    As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, there is also cause for a little humility, given the amount of time that we have taken between us to reach this point. As a result of the Bill passing into law, we can look forward to a far more balanced representation of men and women on these Benches than has ever been the case in the history of the House.
    Until about two minutes ago, there was an exact gender balance in the Chamber. This is probably the first time that that has happened, but I hope that we can look forward to it in years to come.
    It is a cause for celebration that the Bill's Third Reading will not be subject to a Division. That shows the strong commitment from all parties that they will take action to ensure that the House is properly representative of everyone in the country.
    We recognise that there is much to be done. I have just referred to the temporary gender balance in the House, and I have another small statistic. I noted that, until a
    918
    few minutes ago, 30 per cent. of the Conservative party's women Members of Parliament were present, whereas only about 2 per cent. of its male representatives were here. I did not have the opportunity to turn round to make a similar calculation for Labour Members, but I suspect that the result would not have been much different.
    The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) challenged Ministers to ensure that elections to any future elected Chambers would be subject to the Bill's provisions. The Bill refers to the elected Assemblies that are already in place, so it would not be appropriate to write into it reference to something that does not exist. However, in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government said that
    "we intend to apply the principle in the Bill to all future bodies that come into existence and are elected."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 November 2001; c. 51.]
    That is a firm and clear commitment from the Government that that will happen in the future when relevant legislation comes before the House.
    I am delighted that the Bill's simplicity has been maintained throughout its various stages in the House. It is a simple Bill embodying a simple principle and it achieves a simple outcome. It allows for political parties to introduce methods of selection which they consider—I accept that there may be differences between the parties—will enable more women candidates to be selected for election to the House and to other elected Assemblies. We face a simple challenge: to make that happen.
    I look forward to the day 15 years hence when we ask ourselves whether we should renew the sunset provision currently provided for by clause 3. When we look around these Benches, I hope that we shall say, "No, we should not renew that provision because, at last, the talents of all our people are fully represented on the Benches in the House."
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    DEFERRED DIVISION
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I now have to announce the results of the Division deferred from yesterday.
    On the motion on Local Government Finance, the Ayes were 357, the Noes were 1, so the motion was agreed to.
    [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, in Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments, a group of amendments appears under the heading "Restrictions on repeal of provisions of Football (Disorder) Act 2000". Amendment No. 1 was tabled by the Conservative party's Front-Bench spokesmen and by my colleagues and me while amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were tabled by Conservative Members.
  As you will have seen, Madam Deputy Speaker, two further amendments were tabled by my colleagues and me. Given that, until this point, all selections are provisional and that there is an opportunity to make a last- minute bid for reconsideration, may I put the case for the inclusion of amendment No. 5 in the group to be considered?
  We did not take votes on amendments in Committee, because we knew that we would return to the issues on Report. In effect, two different issues were raised in Committee. The first was the legislation's duration, and that will be covered by the debate on the amendments already selected. The second was whether any preconditions should be placed on the legislation having a particular duration, and that point is covered by amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which would introduce a precondition relating to previous conditions.
  Although I am sure that it will be possible to touch on the second issue in the debate on the group that has been selected, I would appreciate it if amendment No. 4 or, preferably, amendment No. 5 could be selected so that those of us who wish to vote on those amendments could have an opportunity to do so at the end of the debate. I hope that you are minded to consider my suggestion positively, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I know that Mr. Speaker gave very serious consideration to the amendments before him. Having listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am not inclined to change Mr. Speaker's decision.

  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill

    Clause 1
    REPEAL OF PROVISIONS OF FOOTBALL (DISORDER) ACT 2000
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 4, leave out "subsections
    (2)" and insert—
    '(a) subsection (2) is substituted by the following—
    "(2) But—

    (a) no application under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (banning orders made on a complaint) may be made, and

    (b) no power conferred on a constable by section 21A or21B of that Act (summary measures) may be exercised,

    after the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which section 1 of the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Act 2001 enters into force", and
    (b) subsections (3)'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 4, leave out—
    'subsections (2) to (5) are'
    and insert "subsection (2)(a) is".
    No. 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
    Mr. Grieve: We are considering a very short Bill and we return to a subject that was aired and that was of considerable concern in Committee. Because the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs has alas not felt able to respond to those concerns by tabling Government amendments, it is necessary to ask the House to reconsider the position.
    I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time or rehearse too much of the background. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, might rule me out of order if I did. However, it is necessary to say a few words about the thrust of the Bill. Parliament enacted legislation that was designed to try to halt football hooliganism, and that legislation has commanded much cross-party support. Conservative Members certainly support it.
    That legislation has introduced what can only amount to infringements of what would normally be described as ordinary civil liberties, particularly in respect of the procedures under sections 14 and 21 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Under them, either a procedure by complaint may lead to a banning order or—and more draconian still—under section 21, it is possible for police officers to stop people at ports or points of exit and detain them until the police decide whether they wish to bring them before the magistrates within 24 hours so that a banning order can be made. That is an unusual infringement of liberties, because there is no criminal element to the jurisdiction; it can be based simply on the nature of previous evidence relating to the conduct of that person.
    In simple terms, the Bill will get rid of the necessity to renew the unusual powers conferred on the enforcing authority. The thrust of amendment No. 1, which enjoys the support of the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, is to signal to the Government that, although we understand their motives, we think the provision should be subject to a sunset clause.
    In Committee there was considerable debate about sunset clauses. The official Opposition, for whom I was the spokesman, suggested that a five-year sunset clause might be suitable. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) thought that five years might be sufficient, but an amendment tabled by his party proposed annual renewals in the meantime. We therefore suggest in amendment No. 1 that at the end of a four-year period, the powers under the Bill fall to be renewed in relation to sections 14B and 21A or 21B of the Football Spectators Act 1989.
    It is worth examining in detail the powers conferred on the enforcing authority. In Committee, the Minister helpfully provided some indications of the way in which the legislation was working. He made it clear, and we accept, that in respect of the England v. Germany match in Munich, the powers that Parliament had conferred on the enforcing authority had been successful. The match was a success, and it is generally accepted that the level of violence surrounding it was tiny compared with some

    921

    of the problems that existed in the past. There was little evidence that English fans or supporters were the major culprits.
    That is a favourable omen for the working of the legislation, but against that we must consider the statistical evidence which emerged in Committee about how it is working in relation to the powers under section 21. According to the last information that I had, 98 people had been detained. The Minister said in Committee that if he had any further information of any substance, he would provide it, but none has keen put in the Library or communicated to us, although I believe that one of the statistics may have changed briefly.
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): Last night and today, in preparation for the debate, we have finalised some further figures, which it would be useful to put on the record. The major development since the Committee stage is that, arising from the Munich matches, where section 21 was used, 22 cases had been to court and been adjourned. I can tell the House that of those 22 cases from Munich, 11 have been resolved. In five cases the banning order was confirmed or imposed, and in six it was refused.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, which allows us to take a brief overview. Under the section 21 procedure, I remind the House, a person is stopped summarily at the port of exit—airport or harbour—the police officer inquires into the circumstances and decides within six hours whether to allow the person to proceed or whether to bring him within 24 hours before a court. The court must determine whether the order banning that person should be imposed or not.
    According to the figures available to me and discussed in Committee, 98 people have been detained under that procedure. Against 55, there had been previous complaints leading to banning, but on the basis of what the Minister has just told us, we should add five or six to that figure. At the time that we were in Committee, 23 cases had been adjourned by the court, and 18 had been refused. If I understand the Minister's figures, another five or six cases should be added to that figure. Thirteen refusals had taken place at initial hearings and five after adjournments, but that figure of five would now have risen to 10 or 11—I am not sure precisely which.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the figures 55, 23 and 18, which he mentioned, add up to 96, rather than the 98 cases in total? I wonder what happened to the other two.
    Mr. Grieve: I had indeed noticed. I reproduced the figures that we were given in Committee. Part of the problem seems to be some muddle about cases arising from the England v. Germany match and cases that may relate to other instances. The Minister may be able to help us, but I can only go on the figures given to us in Committee.
    My right hon Friend rightly highlights one of the problems that we encountered in Committee and on Second Reading—the paucity of information about how the legislation works in practice. The Minister says that the provisions are good; that they have served their
    922
    purpose; that we have the wonderful example of the England v. Germany match; and that we should make them permanent, whereas previously Parliament was not prepared to do that, because of the infringements of civil liberties that the legislation entailed.
    It is extraordinary that the information has come out in dribs and drabs. My right hon. Friend highlighted a minor inconsistency in the total figures, but the Minister may be able to clear that up. It remains extremely difficult to form a view about how the legislation is working. All that one can say—it may be unfair to the Minister and what he is trying to achieve, but one must face up to it—is that a substantial number of people who have been put through the section 21 procedure have ended up without banning orders. If that is the case, the House should rightly be worried about it.
    In Committee, we spoke about the infringement of the liberty of the citizen or the subject—I do not mind which word we use, for the purposes of this evening's discussion. It has often been said in the House that we prided ourselves on being subjects precisely because we had so much freedom in relation to those who claimed to be citizens. Now that we call ourselves citizens, it seems that our liberties are constantly being eroded.
    People are being put through a process not previously known to the criminal law. It may be administratively convenient, but it can create injustice. We are anxious to ensure that we are not about to enshrine in law and permanently a measure that we may come to regret. Because the people who will be subject to it may not necessarily be the No. 1 pin-ups of liberal society—football hooligans as a group are not people who commend themselves particularly to right-thinking people—we might bury the argument as a matter of administrative convenience, whereas we should be willing to review it.
    That is the basis of amendment No. 1. It is difficult to see that it would interfere with the working of the Bill. The relevant sections would simply come up for review in four years. Considering the amount of time that we have taken over the Bill—an evening for Second Reading, an hour and a half or slightly more in Committee, and the time that we will take this evening—I do not believe that the progress of legislation four years from now will be massively handicapped if the Government are forced to revisit issues that have previously been considered.
    As the Minister fairly acknowledged in Committee, there are plenty of issues relating to the legislation which legitimately cause disquiet. A balance must be struck—we are fond of that word in this place—and we are not striking a balance if, on slender evidence of the working of the legislation, we enshrine it once and for all.
    Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and I share many concerns about process and substance in the legislation, but I intervene simply to put one point on record. It concerns further evidence in relation to previous convictions among people in the following two categories: those against whom banning orders have eventually been imposed, and those who have been held but against whom no order has eventually been made. Has the hon. Gentleman's research since we last debated this matter revealed whether either category has ever included people who have never been the subject of any previous conviction? If that is the case, there is a greater apparent

    923
    infringement of liberty, because such people will have been subject to restriction on the basis of no previous evidence.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I remember well that he made it in Committee, where he asked the Minister for clarification of the extent to which the legislation was catching people who had not previously been prosecuted for an offence of violence linked to a football match. If those whom the legislation is catching had been caught previously, it would not be necessary, so it would be interesting to find out the category of person whom it is latching on to. Of course, I accept that somebody might have had a conviction a long time ago but not be an active hooligan. In that regard, I correct myself, as I have to accept that that is also the case. None the less, we have never been given the information.
    That returns me to the basis of our anxiety: lack of information. The problem is not lack of understanding about what the Government are getting at or lack of sympathy with their aims. It is certainly not a desire to see football hooliganism return to rear its ugly head, as happened only very recently. We want the ability properly to scrutinise and to make an informed decision. Indeed, the renewal was introduced precisely to enable Parliament to do that, yet, one year down the road, we are being asked to renew the legislation earlier than was originally required, even though we need not have done it until next summer.
    That is why amendment No. 1 not only meets the Government's desire to introduce a greater note of permanency but provides a way in which the legislation can automatically come up for review. Many international football matches, including the World cup, will have occurred by the proposed time. All sorts of things will have happened that will enable Parliament to make a decision that is much better informed than what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the success of the legislation in a single instance. We are being asked to take a decision without knowing anything much about the downside.
    The issue is very simple and I do not think that I would be treating the House properly by turning what should be a short speech into a lengthy one. However, before I finish, I want also to consider the other two amendments in the group, which provide an alternative approach. We touched on it in Committee, but it is worth repeating. For reasons that I have mentioned, the alternative is this: we could decide to give permanency to section 14 of the Football Spectators Act 1989, but to leave the situation in relation to section 21 under the present system.
    I should like to amplify that point very briefly. I have explained the Opposition's considerable anxieties about the way in which section 21 is working. In contrast, we have far fewer anxieties about the way in which section 14 is working. Section 14 is, after all, a complaints procedure. Civil complaints procedures in the magistrates courts are a form of activity that has historically had a long track record. One of the ways in which one used to bring paternity cases was to go to the magistrates court and make a complaint. So it is not as if magistrates courts are not familiar with this form of injunctive proceedings.
    924
    However, we are talking about such proceedings occurring in a framework where there is no emergency and where there may be ample opportunity to consider the issues carefully.
    I say to the Minister that that is the way in which Parliament expected the legislation primarily to work. The section 21 procedure was expected to be an emergency procedure in the immediate run-up to a football match abroad. I think that I am right in saying—we considered the issue in Committee, and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that, in reality, far more complaints appear to have been made through the section 21 procedure in relation to a banning order than through the section 14 procedure. In itself, that must reinforce anxiety in the House about making the section 21 procedure permanent.
    That is why amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together provide an alternative to amendment No. 1. They allow for the possibility, if the Minister and the Government prefer it, of making section 14 permanent—about which, on the face of it, we would have very little anxiety. At the same time, they would allow the section 21 procedure, which is new and has been applied fully only on this one occasion, to continue under the present system while there is a lack of statistical evidence and detail about its effect on individuals.
    Those are the choices. For obvious reasons, I principally commend amendment No. 1, but I wait to hear the Minister's view. In Committee, he was conciliatory. He appeared carefully to take on board the points that had been made. I do not see the issue as party political, as all parties are united in their desire to ensure that football hooliganism is controlled, so I had rather hoped that by the time we reached Report, somebody in the Home Office might have sat down and concluded that a sunset clause was a reasonable way of proceeding. We could then all leave here very happy, but I fear that that is not going to happen unless the Minister has suddenly experienced his Damascene conversion. If he has done so, I will be delighted. I dare say that, if that were the case, we could all go away very quickly and bring this Report stage to a conclusion.
    I wait to hear what the Minister has to say, but I must tell him that we are considering a fundamental issue. Civil liberties and the rights of individuals must not be eroded for the convenience of the state or even the majority unless there is good and sufficient reason. Such reason is based on evidence. At the moment, the evidence is lacking, and the common-sense approach is to ensure that the issue can be revisited.
    Simon Hughes: I am very pleased to speak to the amendment, which., as the House will have noticed, was tabled jointly by Conservative Front-Bench Members and Liberal Democrats. We tabled it because we have a common view on the key issue, which was raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and has been the dominant theme—as it was bound to be—of our consideration of this very short Bill.
    I guess that this discussion is a trailer to the debate that we are about to launch into next Monday. Although the Bill appears to be rather limited and circumscribed, and is apparently not of great national importance, it none the less touches on the same issues that the anti-terrorism Bill will, on a much larger canvass, bring before the House

    925
    from next Monday onwards for a few weeks. This is the foothill, as it were, to the mountain of important legislation that will come before us within a week from now. The legislation is linked by this common theme: the question of when it is right to restrict the liberties of British citizens and others in terms of doing what we would usually expect to be able to do. In this case, we are considering travel around this continent, within at least the area of the European Union in which there is a common travel entitlement.
    An article in the New Law Journal by Ian Blackshaw reviewed the debates on football disorder legislation, especially recent court cases. The first paragraph of his conclusions mentions the Gough case, which, as the Minister knows, was decided only a few months ago. It states that the case
    "illustrates the fine balance to be struck between the need for the Government to effectively prevent football related violence occurring when the English national team plays overseas and the demands upon the State to act in accordance with human rights legislation as well as the freedom of movement requirements imposed by UK membership of the European Union."
    We are all trying to deal with getting the balance right.
    Let us consider the key arguments. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield, other hon. Members and I argued in Committee that we should do only what is necessary, and that precautionary legislation, which takes away liberties, is probably bad and should exist only if it is justified by the evidence. We put the case that the evidence does not yet justify permanent legislation, and that it could not do that because we have not had sufficient time to collect, consider and assess it.
    In Committee, a Labour colleague, who has a special interest in and knowledge of football because he is the chairman of a league club, argued that we should not have permanent legislation—I hope that 1 do not do him a disservice—because football disorder will not always be with us. We hope that we will not need to display in our shop window that England needs permanent special legislation to deal with football hooligans. Even those who argue that the measure is currently necessary hope that it will not be required in weeks, months or years from now.

    There was a difference of opinion at the beginning of the debate on the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 about the duration of the sunset provision. It was fair of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to point out that different proposals had been put before Parliament. We are trying to make the Government the most generous offer by proposing a long period and by picking up on a suggestion that the Minister's predecessor made, who hoped that the House of Commons would agree to a sunset provision of five years. We sought a better deal. The House of Lords included in the 2000 Act a maximum limit of two years. It also provided for a one-year renewal requirement. That is why we are debating the subject again this parliamentary year.
    I want to make two further points about the need for more evidence. First, the Government have inexplicably introduced the Bill at almost the earliest opportunity in the parliamentary cycle instead of waiting until the end of the football season and the weeks before its expiry date next August. Even if they wanted to move urgently towards permanent legislation, their case would be better supported by waiting.
    926
    Secondly, I want to consider the argument that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield presented in detail. The figures are worryingly unsupported for three reasons. First, banning orders have not been imposed on a significant number of people whose movements were prevented. They were not allowed to attend a match abroad, but the prohibition was not found to be justified. Secondly, of all those who were stopped, many were permanently in the category that I have just described. Some were told, as soon as they went to court, that no banning order would be imposed.
    7.45 pm
    Thirdly, I am not aware of any case of a banning order being imposed on anyone who has no relevant previous conviction. That was the subject of my intervention on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. It has been suggested that there is one such case, and I am sure that the Minister will put the record straight. My colleagues and I believe that we should not include in permanent legislation a restriction on a British passport holder who has been convicted neither of a football-related offence nor of any violent or public disorder offence.
    My noble Friend Earl Russell asked a parliamentary question in the House of Lords on 10 July of Home Office Minister, Lord Rooker. He asked:
    "What types of evidence have been held to justify the making of orders under Sections 21A and 21B…
    How many appeals there have been"
    and how many orders had been made and on what evidence. Lord Rooker replied:
    "The Football Banning Orders Authority advises that in addition to the 44 banning orders on complaint cited in the Home Office report, two orders were imposed and subsequently overturned on appeal. Detailed information on the evidence laid before the courts in each case is not held centrally. However, the authority advises that all persons subject to complaint proceedings, including those prompted by section 21B notices, have convictions for violence or public order offences, not necessarily connected with football, committed within the time-scale specified in the Act."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2001: Vol. 626. c. WA69.]
    My colleagues and I cannot support amendments Nos. 2 and 3 because we have consistently argued that, without better evidence, we should not ban people with no previous relevant convictions but proceed gradually and incrementally. There is therefore a difference of opinion between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties about what is currently acceptable as a permanent position.
    In considering appropriate duration for the measure, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and I believe that there should be a decent period to collect evidence on which to make a judgment. We have not simply plucked the proposals—for five years in the amendments that we tabled in Committee and for four years in amendment No. 1—off the shelf without thinking them through. Our alternative covers a cycle of football matches that will produce every case that could be used as evidence for a reasonable conclusion. It would cover next year's World cup, a further cycle of domestic and international competition, and the European championships two years later. That competition prompted the measure. We hope that no one will argue that four years is not a reasonable period. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield implied, it does not require the House to do lots of work regularly, but it gives everyone a chance to ascertain whether the legislation has been effective.

    927
    We are not keen on the Bill; we believe that it goes too far. However, the inclusion of our qualifications would improve it. It is bad enough when emergency legislation stays on the statute book for years, let alone measures that are not justified by evidence.
    My second point is that, since we last debated this issue in Committee, one of the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office ministerial team was asked what became a topical question in the context of the international alliance's action against the Taliban regime. The question was whether there is a power to stop a British citizen leaving the country, if it is their declared intention—in practice or in theory—to go to fight against British troops. The Minister suggested that that was something that could be considered, and referred to the fact that legislation already exists to stop British citizens going abroad.
    I argued elsewhere—perfectly straightforwardly, I hope my colleagues will agree—that it sets a dangerous precedent to have a piece of legislation in one corner marked "Football disorder" and another somewhere else that could, in theory, be marked "Baseball disorder" or "Basketball disorder". It is much better to address the principle: do we, as a country, believe that we should have legislation banning people from travelling and, if so, in what circumstances?
    If there is an issue to be addressed in the Home Office of whether people can be prevented from leaving the country on the basis of evidence that they might be going off to become mercenaries or to join in some military action, we ought to have a debate in the round and to debate these issues together. The restriction of liberty to travel is the bigger issue, even though it is being presented at the moment only in the context of football. That is another argument for coming back to this issue in due course.
    The third issue is this—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and I agree that these measures constitute a significant infringement of people's liberty. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former deputy leader of the Conservative party, who has assiduously followed this debate, has also made strong speeches on the issue. No one has yet reminded the House of what, in practice, the length or the severity of the penalty might be. Under section 14B, it is possible for a ban to last between two and three years. Its upper limit is three years. Contravention of the conditions of a banning order can attract a penalty of six months imprisonment or a level 5 fine of £5,000.
    In relation to banning orders generally, if they are imposed at the same time as a custodial sentence is imposed under the existing legislation, they have to be for at least six years and they can be as long as 10 years. If they are imposed off the back of any other conviction, the period must be at least three years and can be up to five years. Obviously, I do not know what is in the minds of all colleagues on both sides of the House, but we are not talking about a measure that stops someone travelling for two minutes, two days, two months or even two years. In many cases, we are talking about a long-term restriction of liberty.
    The measure risks turning someone with no previous conviction of any sort into someone who is defined by law as a hooligan because they have been banned from
    928
    travelling on the basis that suspicions about their previous behaviour—for which they have never been convicted—and suggestions about their future activities make it appropriate to say that a restriction of liberty should be imposed.
    I am sorry that we cannot put to the House the opportunity of discussing the matter of previous convictions; I accept that that is not possible this evening. In the circumstances, I hope that there will be maximum agreement for the restriction of the life of the measures, as the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives jointly propose. I have a sense that if, down the corridor in the other House, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers vote together—even without the independent peers, although they are often supportive—we may be able to persuade the Government by our numbers in a few days' time, even if we have not persuaded them by our argument tonight.
    It would be more gracious, and probably save a bit of time, if the Government accepted the amendment this evening. We have given them plenty of notice and plenty of opportunity, and our proposals are eminently reasonable. I hope that I am being fair to the House in saying that I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and I will be regarded as having put the case reasonably. It is a strong case, and we really must not make this legislation permanent now. There is just not the evidence to do so.
    Mr. Lilley: I shall endeavour to be brief. The position is very clear—sections 14B, 21A and 21B give the authorities the power to deprive British subjects of their liberties and rights even though they may not have been convicted of any offence. That power ought not to be on the statute book at all. It certainly ought not to be on it permanently, and I therefore support the amendment. None the less, the power is on the statute book temporarily. We have some experience of its operation. That experience may not be adequate or complete, but none the less we have to use it to make an assessment of whether the powers are effective and of whether they are necessary to meet desirable objectives.
    Since the powers were introduced, there has been a period of calm at home and abroad with respect to English football hooliganism. Clearly, the Football Spectators Act 1989 as a whole has either been effective or it has coincided rather happily with a period of calm for which it is not responsible. Let us assume that it has contributed to that calm. We know that, of the 400 or 500 people who have been detained or prevented from travelling, only about 10 per cent., or a little more, have been detained and prevented from travelling under these offensive sections. Therefore, about 90 per cent. of any improvement that has been achieved by the measure has been achieved by their inoffensive or less offensive aspects.
    The Government say that although only a relatively small number of people have been detained, the sections provide a deterrent effect. The other sections presumably also provide a deterrent effect, so I still maintain that 90 per cent. of the effect of the Act could he achieved without these sections. They have not been shown by the experience of the legislation to be necessary to achieve the aims that the Government set themselves. That is certainly not a reason for putting them permanently on the statute book, and it reinforces the case for this sunset clause.

    929
    I shall consider the position in principle. The reason that section 14B is offensive is that it enables people to be detained even when they may not have been guilty of any criminal offence. In particular, it requires the court to be satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met. Subsection (2) states:
    "That condition is that the respondent has at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere."
    Broadly speaking, therefore. three kinds of behaviour are involved. The first is behaviour which may constitute an offence in the United Kingdom, but for which no conviction has yet been obtained. In Committee, the Minister pointed out that Lord Justice Laws had said that the standard of proof required would be practicably indistinguishable from the criminal standard. If, therefore, it is possible to bring forward proof of a criminal standard that someone has engaged in behaviour that constitutes an offence, why do we not simply charge them with that offence and convict them? For that kind of behaviour, we do not need section 14B.
    The second kind of relevant behaviour is that which does not constitute a criminal offence in the UK or abroad. If something is not a crime, it should not be punished. If it deserves to be punished, it should be a crime. The Government have not resolved that or told us whether they believe that there is a category of behaviour that does not constitute a crime but can none the less be described as
    "causing or contributing to any violence or disorder in the UK or abroad."
    What is particularly abhorrent is that non-criminal behaviour is to be punished, quasi-administratively, retrospectively. People acting legally can be retrospectively punished by being deprived of their right to travel and of their freedom in the UK for some hours or days.
    8 pm
    The third category of behaviour is that which constitutes an offence abroad but has not resulted in conviction abroad. The Minister said that we all understand that foreign Governments do not want to charge and convict British hooligans but prefer to send them home. Foreign Governments have that right but, essentially, their duty is to uphold the law in their territory and our duty is to uphold the law in ours. There has always been a strong presumption against extra-territory legislation—against us legislating in this House for offences committed outside our jurisdiction and in other parts of the world. We have always believed that that is wrong and undesirable. It should be avoided partly because it can lead to a double jeopardy—people can be held accountable by our courts and courts abroad—but, more practically, because it will always be more difficult for a British Government and our courts to have the necessary access to evidence, witnesses and so on for offences carried out abroad. That applies in these circumstances.
    If Belgium, France and Germany do not wish to charge and convict British citizens for behaviour in their territories, it is certainly wrong for us to do so. Obviously, we should co-operate if we have evidence about people by sharing it with foreign Governments so that they can either pursue cases in the courts or, if they wish to restrict British citizens' access to their countries during football
    930
    tournaments, they can do that and it is their responsibility. We should not set ourselves up as legislators for the rest of the world. The Government have a slight tendency to think that they rule the world, but that is a wider issue and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to deviate in that direction.
    Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government wanted to present extra-territorial legislation or seek an agreement with foreign Governments, they have plenty of immediate opportunities to do so? An extradition Bill is coming up for debate this year and there are plenty of European Union directives dealing with common practice that the Government seek to implement. The Government have plenty of opportunities in other forums to get the agreement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Whether he or I would agree with them is a separate question.
    Mr. Lilley: Yes. Emphasising the hon. Gentleman's final point, I agree with the principle of what he said.
    Practically, these measures account for at most a tenth or an eighth of the total consequences achieved by the Act as a whole. Within that 10 per cent. or so, a significant element of behaviour must be criminal, established to a criminal level of proof, charged under the relevant criminal statute and taken out of the legislation. The residual element, which is either non-criminal behaviour in the UK or criminal behaviour abroad, should either not be punished at all or left to the foreign authorities.
    I hope that the House will pass this amendment and time-limit the offensive clauses of the Bill, remembering that, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, they have been quoted by the Government as a precedent for other legislation restricting British citizens' rights. We shall consider in due course whether that other legislation is necessary, but we must be aware that if we allow offensive legislation on to the statute book, it tends to spread. It is infectious. Bad precedents lead to further bad legislation, so I urge the House to pass the amendment and ensure that the offensive clauses are with us for only a short period.
    Mr. Denham: I hope that this has been a useful debate, although inevitably we have covered as much ground as we did on Second Reading and in Committee. One of the responsibilities that falls on Governments is to assess evidence, take decisions and offer some leadership to the House. One of the Opposition's jobs is to find reasons to oppose specific pieces of legislation without coming off the fence about whether in principle they support them. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) did an admirable job this evening, because I was left none the wiser by the end of his speech about whether, deep down, he thinks that this Bill is acceptable.
    The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was clear: he does not like the Bill. He does not believe that the measures that it takes are justified in order to tackle the problem that it seeks to address: the damage done to England's reputation and English football by hooliganism. That is a tenable position for the right hon. Gentleman to take, but it is not the position of the Government or of most hon. Members.
    I want briefly to go through the arguments that have been made tonight, assess them and say what I think the House should do under the circumstances. When the

    931
    original legislation was going through the House, the then Home Office Minister, now Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), suggested that there should be a five-year sunset period. Ultimately, he was faced with arguments in another place that we should assess the original legislation after a year, and we are now doing that. Each individual Member will have to decide, on the basis of the available evidence, whether we should now put the legislation on the statute book on a more permanent basis. I believe that sufficient evidence is available to the House to do that.
    We set out our reasons in the impact reports that we published on Second Reading and in Committee. The measures contained in sections 14B, 21A and 21B of the 1989 Act have already faced the stiffest challenge that they are likely to encounter before the 2004 European championships in Portugal. I anticipate that we shall not see such huge movements of fans to Japan or Korea as we have seen in the past, although we will liaise with the authorities in those countries ahead of the World cup.
    Therefore, the argument that it would have been better to wait and try to rush the legislation through in the very few weeks between the World cup and when the legislation needs to be renewed does not stand up to examination. It is not obvious to me that a vastly greater body of significant evidence would be available to the House had we operated on that time scale.
    Simon Hughes: Has the Minister thought ahead about what the Government would do if, after five years or so, there was no evidence that the English disease was continuing? Do the Government think that hooliganism by so-called English football supporters will, like sin, for ever be with us, or does he hope, like the rest of us do, that in time it will no longer exist, in which case we should not need to keep legislation on the statute book just in case one day it might recur.
    Mr. Denham: We approach many pieces of legislation on the basis that the problems that they seek to resolve might not be with us for ever. It is sometimes argued that all legislation should have a sunset clause built in for that very reason. I shall not go through the detailed chronology of events, but we have lived with the problem of hooliganism for at least 20 years, possibly longer.
    Let there be no doubt that we are being looked at by the rest of the world and tested on the seriousness of our commitment to tackling the thuggery and violence that has been associated with England. I think that the rest of the world would look at us rather oddly if we sent the message that we truly thought that, with that 20-year history that we have only just started to reverse, the problem can be eradicated in only three or four years and that there is no need for the legislation. Although I would love to believe that that will be the position, at this stage, I think that that would be asking a lot. It would be wonderful if there were no need to use the legislation.
    My personal view is that, given the time scale that we have talked about, we are likely to continue to need to have in place a legislative framework. On Second Reading, it was recognised that although domestic premier league football matches are very largely free of trouble at the grounds and immediately around the
    932
    grounds, there is still a significant amount of violence at some of the fixtures of lower division clubs. We have not yet eradicated the problem in our domestic game as we should have liked.
    It is quite interesting that, although we have had debates on the legislation's impact, no individual cases have been cited either in the House or in the media that suggest a real risk to the civil liberties of anyone other than known troublemakers. I think that, on the basis of the evidence available to us, it would be appropriate to enshrine sections 14B, 21A and 21B in statute.
    I have tried to be as open as possible with the information that we have on the Bill and to update the House as information became available. I shall again run through some of the figures, and deal with the point that was made in earlier exchanges on the missing two cases. The total number of banning orders amounts to 808, 708 of which prevent travel to matches overseas. That is an increase of about 200 since the Munich match, and an increase of about 600 since the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 came into force.
    As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, about 10 per cent. of the total number of banning orders have been made using the section 21 route. However, his conclusions and mine are diametrically opposite, as I think that it is a good thing that the majority of banning orders are obtained by routes other than the five-day control period that applies to section 21 orders. Nevertheless, I also believe that the provision's existence, and the knowledge that there is the possibility to act against someone who was not previously subject to a banning order on complaint or conviction, is a powerful and important deterrent that we should not lose.
    Since the law was changed, after Euro 2000, 537 orders have been imposed after conviction for a football-related offence, and 90 orders have been imposed in accordance with the 14B complaint procedure. As the records show, the remainder of the orders were made under previous legislation.
    I shall go through the figures on 21B notices. The reason for the apparent discrepancy of two in the figures is that the figure of 98, as it then was, included two orders that had been imposed but were subsequently overturned on appeal. Therefore, the initial figure is the maximum number of orders that were imposed, and the final figure is gained by deducting from that the two orders that were overturned on appeal.
    In the control period applying to Munich, there was a total of 67 21B notices, of which 41 orders were imposed, 15 refused and 11 subject to adjournments. The Munich figures incorporate the earlier figures that I gave to the House.
    Simon Hughes: The Minister said that 90 per cent. of the cases have been vindicated and 10 per cent. have not, but he surely cannot say that the civil liberties of that 10 per cent. who were stopped from going about their lawful business have not been unjustifiably infringed. If that percentage applied to the population more widely, it would be regarded as a national outrage. He seems to be saying that it is not a severe infringement of liberties simply because it affects only a small number of people.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman has to be slightly careful about that. There may be many cases in domestic situations in which individuals have an encounter with the law and are arrested, for example, but those individuals do not sue for wrongful arrest although they are not convicted of an offence. The House has to be realistic that, in court-based proceedings, we are unlikely to have a situation in which 100 per cent. of the orders that are sought are granted. Although it would be wonderful to think that a system could be so precise as to produce that outcome, such an outcome is inherently unlikely.
    The House has to decide, on the basis of the figures before us, whether the situation that has so far been operating is satisfactory and sufficient to be enshrined in law. The question that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield failed very carefully to answer is whether he would find the legislation unacceptable if that situation continued. Perhaps he will answer the question.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister asks an interesting question. However, the answer depends also on whether there is a perceived need for such legislation at all. Labour Members, for example, consistently opposed the renewal of internment because they considered that, in the Northern Ireland context, it was a serious infringement of civil liberties. The Government are now about to reintroduce it. The example demonstrates at least a willingness to consider the situation in which one introduces legislation affecting the individual's liberty. Surely the same criteria should apply to this legislation.
    Mr. Denham: The House will note that the hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. However, I do not blame him for that as he is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and does not want to commit himself on the issue. We have all been there. Nevertheless, he did not offer an answer to the question whether he finds the situation satisfactory.
    I have had to consider these issues, and I have considered the possible impact on people's civil liberties. I think that there will be most concern about the issue of adjourned cases. However, as I said in Committee, it is important to recognise that any restrictions to travel arise from the bail conditions imposed by the court, which is a separate decision from the one to seek a section 21B order. It is the courts that have to be given evidence and persuaded that there are sufficient grounds to prevent the individual from travelling. It is a separate decision, and that is an important point.
    Reference has already been made to the quality of evidence that is required, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) talked about human rights considerations. As of today, no human rights challenge to the legislation has succeeded. Therefore, the human rights implications have been tested in the courts, and the courts have come out in support of the legislation. If I had more time I would read out what was said in those judgments. However, I have already done that in Committee.
    I certainly do believe that as experience grows among police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and magistrates the accuracy of the orders will further improve, as it has already done since the legislation was passed. I
    934
    draw to the House's attention the Lord Chancellor's recent speech to the Magistrates Association in which he pointed out
    "some inconsistency in the application of the law".
    The Lord Chancellor went on to stress that
    "under the Football (Disorder) Act, where the legislative criteria are satisfied, there is no discretion and the court must make an order.-
    I think that, in that case, the Lord Chancellor was prompted to make the comment by data provided by police that showed that banning orders are imposed only in respect of one third of all football-related convictions. Of course each case must be treated on its merits, but, again in the words of the Lord Chancellor,
    "the magistracy has a key role to play in ensuring Parliament's intentions are realised—particularly in the run up to major international tournaments."
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also mentioned the issue of whether there should be a test of conviction before section 14B orders are obtained by means of the section 21 route or by direct application.
    Let me restate the Government's position. It would be rather odd if the qualifying criterion were a conviction for violence incurred, possibly, 30 years earlier, rather than more recent evidence that might be available to the court—for example, video evidence of participation in violent events in Munich. In that event, someone who had had a violent conviction many years earlier might be subject to a section 14B order although there might not be such strong evidence of recent association with violence, while someone who had clearly been involved in violence at an overseas football match might escape because he had never been convicted in this country.
    I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on the point, but it is an argument that we rehearsed in Committee.
    Simon Hughes: None of us are arguing that spent convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 should be resurrected for the purposes of this debate; we are only talking about "live" convictions. Will the Minister tell me, however, whether I am still right in thinking that—as it happens—there has been no banning order under the legislation that we seek to continue that has not involved a previous conviction in relation to an individual? If that is the case, it shows that so far previous convictions have provided the justification, and that there may be good reasons for continuing in that way for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is, I think, no bad thing, because it reflects the fact that the activity we are discussing is intelligence-based, co-ordinated by NCIS and local police forces. It would not be surprising if there were more concentration on those with convictions for violence, but I nevertheless think that the safeguard represented by the ability to bring in wider evidence, such as international evidence, is important.
    The drafting of amendments Nos. 2 and 3 is flawed, although it would not be helpful if I spent time explaining why. I believe, however, that the use of section 21A and 21 B powers is integral to the operation of the Bill. If we could not take action against those who had not been previously identified as going to a match with the

    935
    intention of causing trouble in the five-day control period, the legislation would be seriously weakened. I do not think that the attempt to make this a separate part of the legislation, leaving the rest as it is, holds water.
    I hope that I have replied to the vast majority of points raised this evening.
    Simon Hughes: As I think the Minister understands, the great debate within what is a narrowly focused issue concerns the additional powers introduced by the Bill. I refer to the right to intervene at the port of exit, at the last moment, when by the time the person who has been stopped can deal with the situation it will be too late, because the match will already have been played and that person will not be able to attend it.
    There is a much more logical justification for acting beforehand under the old procedure, involving going to the magistrates court to seek an order. Those who believe they have been wronged can appeal, and have time to do so well before needing to travel. The real mischief occurs when intervention by the authorities comes so late that there is no time to do anything about it.
    The combination of that factor and the lack of the necessary evidence fuels the argument for giving this more time to run. I hope that the House will support us, and those on the Conservative Front Bench, and agree that it is better to legislate carefully and for a limited time than to legislate for ever, when we have no assurance that any future Government will find time to reverse the legislation, even if it is absolutely clear that we do not need it.
    Mr. Grieve: I found the Minister's response disappointing. I was particularly startled by his comments about the relationship between sections 21 and 14 of the 1989 Act. I had never understood that it was other than the Government's case that section 14 was the principal instrument that they intended to use for enforcement purposes; yet the Minister now tells us that section 21 is the indispensable tool.
    Mr. Denham: There is an important difference between saying that section 21 is an integral part of the legislation and saying that it is an indispensable tool. I pointed out myself that 90 per cent. of banning orders are obtained by other routes. I believe that it would seriously weaken the legislation if the procedures relating to sections 21A and 21B were not part of it.
    Mr. Grieve: I thank the Minister for that, but we have seen that section 21 is used more than section 14.
    The issue is simple. The Minister has kept asking what a future Conservative's Government's attitude might be. He must understand that the legislation restricts civil liberties. The House will discuss such matters next week—in a much more serious context, but the principle will he exactly the same. There may be circumstances in which the restriction of civil liberties for which we should fight tooth and nail in the House are necessary because of circumstance. There is no doubt that football hooliganism has been a terrible scourge, but before putting into a permanent form legislation that, by its very nature, should
    936
    be subject to constant review by a House eager to get rid of offensive legislation wherever possible, we should bear in mind that principle.
    The Minister, however, wants permanency. The amendment is surely a sensible and constructive way of giving the Minister what he wants—no annual renewal procedure—while also ensuring that the legislation comes up for review when, perhaps thankfully, all Members may agree that we can safely get rid of it. For that reason, I wish to press the matter to a vote.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 278.

    Division No. 62]

    [8.26 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Lansley, Andrew

    Amess, David

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Baker, Norman

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Baldry, Tony

    Lidington, David

    Barker, Gregory

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Baron, John

    Luff, Peter

    Barrett, John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Beggs, Roy

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Malin, Humfrey

    Bercow, John

    Mates, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Brake, Tom

    Moore, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Munson, Dr Andrew

    Breed, Colin

    Norman, Archie

    Brooke, Annette

    Oaten, Mark

    Bruce, Malcolm

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbuty)

    Burstow, Paul

    Öpik, Lembit

    Burt, Alistair

    Paice, James

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Paterson, Owen

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Pugh, Dr John

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Randall, John

    Campbell, Rt Hon (NE Fife)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Rendel, David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Chidgey, David

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Chope, Christopher

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Cotter, Brian

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Doughty, Sue

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

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Gale, Roger

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gray, James

    Stunell, Andrew

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Grieve, Dominic

    Syms, Robert

    Hammond, Philip

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Hancock, Mike

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Thurso, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Hayes, John

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Heath, David

    Tyler, Paul

    Hermon, Lady

    Watkinson, Angela

    Hoban, Mark

    Webb, Steve

    Holmes, Paul

    Whittingdale, John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Willis, Phil

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Younger-Ross. Richard

    Keetch, Paul

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Mr. David Wilshire and

    Lamb, Norman

    Mr. Charles Hendry

    937

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Drew, David

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Allen, Graham

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Edwards, Huw

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Ennis, Jeff

    Bailey, Adrian

    Etherington, Bill

    Baird, Vera

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Banks, Tony

    Barnes, Harry

    Fisher, Mark

    Barron, Kevin

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Battle, John

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Bayley. Hugh

    Flint, Caroline

    Beard, Nigel

    Flynn, Paul

    Benn, Hilary

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bennett, Andrew

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Benton, Joe

    Foulkes, George

    Betts, Clive

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Blackman, Liz

    Gapes, Mike

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Gardiner, Barry

    Borrow, David

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Godsiff, Roger

    Brennan, Kevin

    Goggins, Paul

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Grogan, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    Bryant, Chris

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Burden, Richard

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Burgon, Colin

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Cairns, David

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Havard, Dai

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Healey, John

    Caplin. Ivor

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Casale. Roger

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Caton, Martin

    Hendrick, Mark

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Challen, Colin

    Heppell, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Chaytor, David

    Heyes, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Hill, Keith

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hope, Phil

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Colman, Tony

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cranston, Ross

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Crausby, David

    Hurst, Alan

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cummings, John

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jamieson, David

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

    Jones. Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Kidney, David

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Dobbin, Jim

    King, Ms Oona (Betnal Green)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dowd, Jim

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    938

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Laxton, Bob

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lepper, David

    Rapson, Syd

    Leslie, Christopher

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Levitt, Tom

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Robertson, John

    Linton, Martin

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Ross, Ernie

    Lucas, Ian

    Roy, Frank

    Luke, Iain

    Ruane, Chris

    Lyons, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McCafferty, Chris

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacDonald, Calum

    Sawford, Phil

    McFall, John

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sheerman, Barry

    McIsaac, Shona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McKechin, Ann

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McWatter, Tony

    Southworth, Helen

    McWilliam, John

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Squire, Rachel

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mallaber, Judy

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mann, John

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Martlew, Eric

    Stringer, Graham

    Meale, Alan

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Tami, Mark

    Miliband, David

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Miller, Andrew

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tipping, Paddy

    Moran. Margaret

    Todd, Mark

    Morgan, Julie

    Touhig, Don

    Morley, Elliot

    Truswell, Paul

    Mountford, Kali

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Mudie, George

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Mullin, Chris

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Tynan, Bill

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Walley, Ms Joan

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Olner, Bill

    Wareing, Robert N

    O'Neill, Martin

    White, Brian

    Organ, Diana

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Owen, Albert

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Pearson, Ian

    Winnick, David

    Picking, Anne

    Woodward, Shaun

    Pickthall, Cohn

    Worthington, Tony

    Pike, Peter

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Plaskitt, James

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Pond, Chris

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Pope, Greg

    Wyatt, Derek

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Mr. Nick Ainger.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Denham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

    939
    The Bill may be short, but it has been the subject of careful scrutiny by the House. I shall not repeat what was said in earlier debates although I was surprised by the power of my oratory when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) decided after all to enter the same Lobby as the Government instead of supporting his own amendment.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister had better be careful as I understand from the Conservative Whips that he wandered into the wrong Lobby too.
    Mr. Denham: Far from it.
    There is a strong case for placing on the statute book without time limits sections 14B, 21A and 21B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 as amended by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. The Government believe that the measures are a tailored and effective response to English football disorder abroad and that they strike the right balance between national and international interests and civil liberties.
    I should say for the record that earlier I was referring rhetorically to a conviction 30 years previously being taken into account. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, convictions can be taken into account only if they occurred within 10 years.
    The available evidence demonstrates that the measures work. Apart from some disturbances in Germany, which were discussed at length on Second Reading, there has been no significant disorder involving English fans abroad since Euro 2000. The current football season has been up and running for about four months and I am pleased to report that the excellent record of English fans is still in place.
    The number of troublemakers prevented from travelling to matches overseas is growing significantly and Governments and police forces across Europe and in Japan and Korea continue to welcome the measures as an on-going declaration on the part of the United Kingdom of our intention to tackle the menace of hooliganism before it leaves these shores. The UEFA threat to expel English football from European competition has not been resurrected.
    In short, there is powerful evidence for enshrining sections 14B, 21 A and 21 B on the statute book without time limit. They withstood a thorough practical and legal examination in the past 14 months and it would be a blow to our national reputation and the image of our national game if they were to be lost next August. That would send out a negative message to our European partners, undermine the English and Welsh anti-hooligan strategy and weaken the power of the police and courts to act against thugs. It would also be seen as an encouragement to hooligans to resume the pattern of repeat offending overseas at a time when England is preparing to embark on its Euro 2004 campaign. I commend the Bill to the House.
    8.43 pm
    Mr. Grieve: During consideration of the Bill, the Minister has failed to take on board what I believe to be sensible, moderate and justified concerns expressed by
    940
    Opposition Members. They would not in any way have negated the thrust of the Government's intention, which was to put on a more permanent footing legislation which, on its introduction, had commanded support from both sides of the House, and even though it caused some hon. Members to express deep anxieties, was something that could be understood.
    We find it very difficult to understand the logic behind the course of action that has been adopted, but we draw some reassurance from the prospect that, given the concomitance of views among Opposition Members, it is likely that individuals in another place will put up a robust defence for civil liberties and try to persuade the Government that, although they should have their Bill, it should not be permanent. That will certainly be the thrust of what we shall seek to achieve later.
    On that basis, we are in no position to support the Bill and we do not intend to do so. After all, only last year the Government were prepared to consider a five-year sunset clause, but now they seem set against it. They have introduced this legislation to make permanent what in any event ought only to be temporary on such a paucity of evidence and on the back of one undoubted success—the England v. Germany match—but not on the basis of material on which a rigorous detailed analysis could be conducted as to whether civil liberties were being adversely affected.
    In those circumstances, I can tell the Minister that he will have to carry the Bill on the support of Labour Members. We do not wish to have any part in it, and we will seek to review the matter elsewhere.
    8.45 pm
    David Wright: I did not get an opportunity to speak on Second Reading, so I appreciate the chance to contribute this evening. I welcome the Bill. It sends the message to those involved in football violence that their actions will not be tolerated, in Britain or abroad.
    It is easy to discuss these matters when football violence is absent from the headlines, but we should not forget the shame experienced when supporters of England or of any of our club sides engage in misguided violence abroad in the name of football and the nation. I am sure that many hon. Members share the emotion felt by many when the England team plays in an international tournament. It is an awful feeling when one wakes up, switches on the television and sees hundreds of people rioting in towns in Europe and around the world. It brings tremendous shame on our nation. The Bill makes it clear to the people involved that such violence is unacceptable.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the need to demonstrate to UEFA and FIFA that the Government have an on-going commitment to dealing with that violence. It is important that we do that, and that we do so in good time. The Bill shows the world and the football authorities that we are serious about dealing with the matter before, during and after the World cup. I hope that the House will support the Bill this evening, so that we can make progress in trying to change our national game, and in dealing with the scourge of the violence that mars international fixtures.
    I intend to focus on some of the wider issues and motivations behind football violence, and on how the Bill can contribute towards stopping it, especially in connection with matches involving the England team.

    941
    On Second Reading. my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) spoke about some of the reading material that he had enjoyed over the summer. It included a Marxist analysis of football violence.
    The Whips will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to pursue a Marxist analysis of football violence this evening, but some of the intellectual analysis of football over more than 20 years has been interesting. In 1981, Desmond Morris published a classic book called "The Soccer Tribe", which deals with the following that football attracts at national and international level. He likened football to tribalism throughout the ages, and noted that football had many tribal symbols, such as team colours, the status of teams among supporters, the territories involved in home and away games, and the displays of triumph.
    I follow lower-league football. I support Shrewsbury Town and Telford United, so there are not many tribal displays for me to become especially worked up about. However, my point is clear: football is a tribal pastime. It provokes a tribal atmosphere among its followers which can, and does, provoke conflict. It is at its most dangerous when allied to a warped sense of nationalism.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of making a Second Reading speech. His speech must not be too wide-ranging, because on Third Reading we can debate only the contents of the Bill.
    David Wright: I understand your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will endeavour to follow it.
    The Bill assists us in dealing with people who engage in a warped form of nationalist violence on the continent and throughout Europe. The Bill gives the police and the courts the authority to deal with people who intend to go abroad and commit violence in the name of a warped sense of nationalism. That is not helped by the way in which the press and media cover football violence. We all remember the front cover of The Mirror at the time of Euro 96. Prior to the England v. Germany game, England players were depicted in second world war helmets. Such coverage, and the link to a warped nationalism, does nothing to assist us in tackling football violence.
    The influence of the far right on this warped sense of nationalism—which I hope that the Bill will prevent people taking to Europe—is particularly alarming. It is worrying to see people chanting certain songs at football matches in Europe. I recall hearing "No Surrender"—the watchword of organisations such as Combat 18—being sung during Euro 2000. The Bill endeavours to stop people who provoke violence and warped nationalism from going across the Channel into Europe and taking their hatred abroad.
    Other supporters in Great Britain do not seem to have this problem. Scottish and Welsh supporters do not behave in a violently nationalistic manner. The disease seems to apply particularly to England's so-called football supporters.
    The Bill will help to alleviate the problem of people travelling abroad to display the nationalism that is linked to football. However, change will be difficult, which is why the measure needs to be enshrined in law in the long term. I share the view that this problem may be with us for some time, unfortunately. We have to show the football authorities that we are committed to dealing with it.
    942
    Desmond Morris said in his book on the subject in 1981:
    "The trick for the future, clearly, is to retain this—"
    tribal—
    "tension, but at the same time to dispense with its most extreme and destructive forms of expression."
    The Bill attempts to do that.
    The other key reform that needs to accompany the Bill is the rejuvenation of the England supporters' formal structure. I know that the Government have considered that and have come forward with proposals.
    We need to prompt a more modern and internationalist perspective in relation to our broader national identity and to the approach taken when supporting our national football side. It would be great to have some moderation and support for that in the national media. I hope that the appointment of a non-English football manager will help to change the emphasis on the particularly warped view of nationalism held by many England supporters. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards stopping people from travelling and causing trouble. People wake up with a terrible feeling in the pit of their stomach during international football events when, once again, we have been disgraced at a national level.
    Football is a gift that our country has given to the world; the Bill will help us to celebrate it together.
    8.54 pm
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: There is a sense that, in their haste to clean up our national game, the Government are using a large sledgehammer in sections 14B and 21A and 21B. Recent tragic events, the human rights issues that surround them and our response perhaps put the Government's perfectly understandable desire to control football violence in some sort of context. I believe that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) hinted at that, and we will debate it on Monday. Proportionality is the key and I am not convinced that the balance has been correctly struck. The Law Society appears to agree, in particular about the standard of proof.
    We must divorce the argument from notions of national pride and the disgust that we feel at the actions of a small number of our countrymen abroad. We should not be in the business of curtailing traditional liberties to repair our national image or pander to the threats of other bodies, national and international, many of which are also burdened with a violent and distasteful minority. In that respect, the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) was wrong. To attempt to do so would be a gross presumption on the part of an authoritarian Government. Paradoxically, it would diminish one of the most attractive features of this country in the eyes of others—the freedom that we enjoy and the presumption of innocence.
    This Bill is a sticking plaster designed to remedy a small but significant lesion. We do not know, but we surmise, that it will help. Whether or not it does, it has huge implications for the traditional liberties that we enjoy and for which this House stands as guarantor.
    I could understand the Government's enthusiasm to curtail the liberties of subjects, or even citizens, if this was a problem that affected sport generically. There might then be more appetite for magisterial legislation of this sort. However, the Bill is designed to deal with a discrete

    943
    problem and, arguably, a declining one at that, notwithstanding an upward blip in arrests relating to football in 2000–01. As such it is surely not appropriate to award the authorities the ability to act against persons without criminal records in the summary manner that is proposed. To do so strikes at the very heart of our system.
    While one could be persuaded that the circumstances make it reasonable to support the general thrust of the Bill, one would do so with a heavy heart. Amendment No. 1 and the sunset clause that it proposed would have made the legislation conditional and would have set a time limit for the evaluation of evidence of its effectiveness and operation that we will now lack.
    8.58 pm
    Simon Hughes: The House of Commons is extremely helpful to hon. Members when we are preparing for debates. Football disorder matters have come before the House often in recent years, so the Library has on more than one occasion produced briefings for colleagues. The research paper that it produced in July 2000 on what was the draft Football (Disorder) Bill, which became the Act that we are trying to make permanent now, contained the reminder that this issue has been knocking around for an extraordinarily long time. On the first page it states:
    "Measures have been taken or sought since the fourteenth century to deal with the problem of disorder relating to football—a 1314 proclamation of Edward II declared:
    Forasmuch there is great noise in the city caused by hustling over large balls, from which many evils may arise, which God forbid, we command and forbid on behalf of the King, on pain of imprisonment, such game to be used in the city in future."
    —[HON. MEMBERS: "Millwall".] I hear completely unjustified allegations from colleagues, such as the Members for Colchester United and for Hereford United and even, for all I know, the Member for Telford United, that the fans of certain clubs might cause trouble. I must place on record that, although it has been around for a long time, the great and ever-rising Millwall football club, which is eighth in the first division and on its way up to the premiership, was not around in the 14th century, much though it would have benefited the country had it been there. Playing football was an imprisonable offence in those days.
    The research paper notes that we have introduced the following legislation to deal with football-related matters: the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985; the Public Order Act 1986; the Football Spectators Act 1989; the Football (Offences) Act 1991; the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) (Amendment) Act 1992; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999. However, the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs tells us that the most recent measure, which became law in July 2000 and took effect in August 2000, to which we gave a life of two years—the Opposition defeated the Government in the House of Lords and amended the Bill accordingly—and for which we approved a second year only in July 2001, should now come back to us only four months later in order to be made permanent legislation.
    I was happy to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison)—I had not previously heard him speak in the House. He made the
    944
    point that we tried to teach the Government the lesson of history: that, on the basis of logic and precedent, it is nonsense to believe that we know now what we shall need in four years.
    My view and that of my colleagues is clear. We did not support an unconditional Bill when it was introduced a year and a half ago. We tried to restrict it as much as we could, but we were only partially successful. However, we obtained a guarantee that it would be brought back within two years. We got it back after a year—at half-time—but we did not make a big fuss because we knew that it would return shortly. It is now back with us.
    We do not believe that it is appropriate for Parliament to make permanent legislation that bans people from travelling without allowing them enough time to make an appeal that would let them attend games. We believe that things may be much better in four years. It may be enough to introduce limited powers to curb the right to travel of people with previous convictions and about whom there is suspicion.
    The test for us is whether the Bill is temporary or permanent. By defeating the amendment, jointly tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, the Government present us with no option but permanent or nothing. We believe that it would be better to defeat the measure so that this Bill with permanent provisions should not go to the other end of the building. The Government have plenty of time—until August next year—to introduce the simple one or two clause Bill that would be necessary to extend the life of the existing legislation, either for four years, as we recommended, or for a lesser period.
    A permanent Bill is not justified. We agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that that argument will prevail in the other place. We ask the House to vote against permanent legislation. It is a bad practice, unsupported by the evidence, and we shall divide the House.
    9.4 pm
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: As I spoke on Second Reading and in the Standing Committee, I had not intended to speak on Third Reading until my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) and other hon. Members talked about their football clubs. My hon. Friend referred to the tribal affinities in football clubs and I realised that, as a lifelong supporter of Cheltenham Town, 1 must be a Chelt. On the other side of the House I recognise a fellow-Chelt—the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones)—so I suppose that we could say that the Cheltic hordes are here today, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not be joining me in the Lobby on this issue. However, I want to make a couple of points because they have not been given ample recognition in the debate so far.
    Much has been said about the need to include a sunset clause because of the basic civil liberty issues involved. However, the Bill will operate only for designated international football matches, and it has a mechanism by which some matches, for a variety of reasons, may not be designated as requiring the full weight of the legislation to be brought into operation.
    If hooliganism at international matches diminishes as time progresses and the balance of civil liberty considerations changes, the sensible way to deal with the

    945
    reduction in violence is not to designate those matches. So we can keep the powers in reserve without having recourse to debate further legislation in Parliament, but we do not have to signal to the fans at large that the legislation is no longer operational.
    That is a far better way to balance the civil liberties and the anti-crime and disorder policies necessary lo protect our international football matches and the status of the England team and its supporters than simply including a sunset clause or not having the legislation at all. The Bill represents a much better way to deal with those issues and it should not be opposed, so I ask the House to back it.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. Denham: With the leave of the House, I shall reply very briefly to the debate. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will not mind my saying that the fact that other hon. Members have contributed to this evening's debate is welcome. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, subject to the outcome of any Division tonight, the Bill will be discussed in another place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) made the very important point, which we should always acknowledge in considering such legislation, that we are dealing with cultural and social problems, and legislation can only ever represent one part of our strategy for dealing with the underlying difficulties that have been with us for several hundred years, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said. During this debate, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked us not only to understand that the problems have existed for 500 years, but to anticipate that they might all be resolved in the next 18 months: therefore, the legislation will be needed for no longer than that.
    Simon Hughes: It may be introduced every year.
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman wishes us to legislate again, but the Government want to put the Bill on to the statute book.
    The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) raised several issues. He talked about the standard of proof, which we dealt with in Committee by quoting from Lord Justice Laws' judgment on the standard of proof required under section 14 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Although the hon. Gentleman said that hooliganism is, arguably, declining, it is doing so at least in part because of the success of the legislation and the targeted policing operation that supports it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) made the important point that flexibility and safeguards are built into the legislation, as is evidenced by the fact that some 20 people subject to banning orders were allowed, on application, to travel abroad during the five-day control period in the run-up to the Munich match because they had good business, personal or family reasons to do so. We have examined the issues thoroughly tonight. I believe that we should proceed with the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 51.

    Division No. 63]

    [9.9 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Doran, Frank

    Allen, Graham

    Dowd, Jim

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Drew, David

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Edwards, Huw

    Baird, Vera

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Banks, Tony

    Ennis, Jeff

    Barnes, Harry

    Etherington, Bill

    Barron, Kevin

    Reid, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Battle, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Bayley, Hugh

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Beard, Nigel

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Benn, Hilary

    Flint, Caroline

    Bennett, Andrew

    Flynn, Paul

    Benton, Joe

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Betts, Clive

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Blackman, Liz

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foulkes, George

    Borrow, David

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gapes, Mike

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Brennan, Kevin

    Gilroy, Unda

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Goggins, Paul

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bryant, Chris

    Grogan, John

    Burden, Richard

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    Burgon, Colin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cairns, David

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hanson, David

    Caplin, Ivor

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Casale, Roger

    Havard, Dai

    Caton, Martin

    Healey, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Challen, Colin

    Hendrick, Mark

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Heppell, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hesfond, Stephen

    Clapham, Michael

    Heyes, David

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hill, Keith

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hope, Phil

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coaker, Vernon

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Colman, Tony

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cranston, Ross

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Crausby, David

    Hurst, Alan

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Gtenda (Hampstead)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jamieson, David

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Khabra, Piara S

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Kidney, David

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dobbin, Jim

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    947

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Owen, Albert

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Pearson, Ian

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Picking, Anne

    Laxton, Bob

    Pickthall, Colin

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Pike, Peter

    Lepper, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Leslie, Christopher

    Pond, Chris

    Levitt, Tom

    Pope, Greg

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Linton, Martin

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lucas, Ian

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Luke, Iain

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lyons, John

    Purchase, Ken

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    McCabe, Stephen

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McCafferty, Chris

    Rapson, Syd

    MacDonald, Calum

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    McFall, John

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McIsaac, Shona

    McKechin, Ann

    Ross, Ernie

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Roy, Frank

    McNamara, Kevin

    Ruane, Chris

    McNulty, Tony

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McWalter, Tony

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sawford, Phil

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mann, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Southworth, Helen

    Miliband, David

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Miller, Andrew

    Squire, Rachel

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Moran, Margaret

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morgan, Julie

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morley, Elliot

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mountford, Kali

    Stringer, Graham

    Mudie, George

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mullin, Chris

    Tami, Mark

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Todd, Mark

    Olner, Bill

    Touhig, Don

    Organ, Diana

    Truswell, Paul

    948

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Winnick, David

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Tynan, Bill

    Worthington, Tony

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Wyatt Derek

    Wareing, Robert N

    White, Brian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mr. Nick Ainger.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Baker, Norman

    Keetch, Paul

    Barrett, John

    Lamb, Norman

    Beggs, Roy

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Moore, Michael

    Breed, Colin

    Oaten, Mark

    Brooke, Annette

    Öpik, Lembit

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Pugh, Dr John

    Burstow, Paul

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Rendel, David

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'dns)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Chidgey, David

    Stunell, Andrew

    Cotter, Brian

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Doughty, Sue

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Thurso, John

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Tyler, Paul

    Hancock, Mike

    Webb, Steve

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Willis, Phil

    Heath, David

    Hermon, Lady

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Holmes, Paul

    Bob Russell and

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Tom Brake.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Clause 1

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered
      That, in respect of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, notices of amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Pearson.]

  Road Safety (Mid-Essex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: This week is not an especially auspicious time to have a debate on road deaths and injuries in mid-Essex. Tragically, two days ago we saw the 100th road accident in the county of Essex that involved fatality and the 110th person in that county die from such an accident. Given the concern that road safety is arousing in the county, I am delighted to see in their places the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I know that they are as concerned as me about what is happening on our roads and to our constituents.
  It is only fair to say that under both the last Conservative Government and the current Government, the Department with responsibility for transport, in whatever configuration, has been doing its utmost to try to improve road safety in this country, as well as to ensure that the roads on which we drive are safer and that drivers are of higher quality and have the ability to drive more safely.
  There is some good news. As a result of the efforts of both Governments, the number of road deaths in the past 22 years has dropped dramatically. In 1979, 6,352 deaths occurred on our roads as a result of road traffic accidents. By last year—the last full year for which we have statistics—the number of deaths had dropped to 3,409. Between 1979 and 1997, deaths and serious casualties on our roads fell by 43 per cent., drink-related road deaths fell by 68 per cent. and fatal accidents involving motor cycles fell by 62 per cent.

  In 1995 alone, there were fewer road deaths than in any year since 1926, when records began, despite the fact that there were 14 times as many vehicles on our roads. Any Government could be proud of that record. Since 1997. the Labour Government and successive Departments responsible for transport have worked to build on that success and to emulate it by making our roads safer and trying to reduce road deaths and accidents further.
  As the Minister knows, the latest 10-year road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone", was launched with a specific aim, which is to
  "introduce tough new casualty reduction targets."
  At the same time, local authorities in mid-Essex—Essex county council, Chelmsford borough council, Maldon district council and Braintree district council—have spent considerable time and effort with the highways agencies and the police on trying to make our roads safer for our constituents and motorists.
  Road safety is an important factor in the construction of new roads in the area. It is also important to consider existing roads, which have accident black spots and appalling safety records, and to try to improve the road safety on them.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is right that there are one or two black spots in the county where road improvements could make a significant difference. The A130 is in my constituency and
  950
  was in my hon. Friend's. He will remember the problems on that road, especially the bypass round Howe Green, and the improvement scheme that is under way and should soon be completed, which could lead to a significant drop in the statistics. Does he agree that there are several other black spots to which such improvement schemes could make an important difference?
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right. As he knows from his experience and from campaigning about the A130 bypass from Howe Green to the Rettendon turnpike, conditions on the existing road have been nightmarish. All too often, the most horrendous road accidents have occurred. They have led to far too many deaths. In addition, there are hazards for motorists who use the road for access to the villages of Danbury and Howe Green. Like my hon. Friend, I am confident that when the bypass opens, there will be a significant drop in road deaths and accidents because it has been specifically targeted as a route that will overcome the problems that posed such a danger to motorists. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that.
  Other roads in the county have a record that is less than desirable. The A120 is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Braintree. He is doubtless reassured by the prospect of the new road that will be built towards Stansted and help to alleviate the problems.
  The A12 travels up the county's spine from the M25 to Ipswich and the ports. It is a good road, but because it is more or less straight, and has three lanes in many areas, the amount of traffic, and the speed at which it travels, sometimes leads to horrendous accidents.
  Those are well-known examples in the county, but for every well-known example, I suspect that there are 10 examples of smaller roads on which, because they follow old, historic routes and have not taken into account the greatly increased traffic of the past 20 or 30 years, there are accidents involving injuries and deaths. The Government, through the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the regional office, the local authorities, the Highways Agency and the police have a positive record on seeking to eliminate unsafe aspects of our roads, as resources allow.
  There is evidence throughout the county of tougher speed limits being introduced in urban and residential areas to stop the rat-running boy racers and other problems associated with speeding in towns, which pose a serious threat to pedestrians and children in built-up areas. Changes are also being made to speed limits on trunk roads and main roads throughout the county, and there is increasing evidence of speed cameras being installed to help to bring down the number of accidents caused by speeding. There are mobile speed cameras, operated by Essex police, and the fixed ones with which we are all so familiar.
  In recent months, my constituency of West Chelmsford has seen a noticeable increase in the activity of police with mobile speed cameras, as well as in the presence of fixed ones. If I remember correctly, until a few months ago there was only one fixed speed camera in my constituency. That is no longer the case. There are now others in areas where there are opportunities for drivers to break the law by speeding.
  I particularly welcome the announcement by the Treasury of the eight pilot schemes to look into the feasibility of allowing the local authorities that install the

  951
  cameras to keep the revenue generated by them, so that they can plough that money back into providing more speed cameras for the local community. I am delighted, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Braintree are, that Essex has one of those eight pilot schemes. The scheme is currently in operation there, and I have no doubt that it will be a success.
  It is in the very nature of the beast that a speed camera that catches speeding motorists will generate revenue, and if the local authority can keep that revenue, it can invest in new cameras; they are not cheap. One of the alleged disadvantages in the past was that the money went immediately to the Treasury, so the local authorities that were having to lay out the capital investment for the cameras were not benefiting from the revenue that they were generating from the speeding vehicles. I hope that the pilot schemes will prove successful and that the Government will make that policy a permanent feature in the pilot scheme areas and possibly in the rest of the country so that everyone can enjoy the benefits that counties such as Essex are enjoying at the moment.
  It bothers me that, despite all the efforts of the Government, local authorities and the police, and despite the targets set down in the Government's strategy, "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone", the appalling statistics on deaths and injuries in mid-Essex this year are bucking the national trend and seem to be impervious to the road safety initiatives. How are we going to achieve an improvement in road safety?
  The new road safety targets for the next 10 years are very challenging, as I am sure the Minister will accept. By 2010, compared to the average for 1994–1998, the targets aim to reduce by 40 per cent. the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. The targets set a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured in that time, and a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of slight injuries.
  I do not question or challenge those figures. I hope that they will be successfully achieved in the time scale. Everybody will be delighted if that happens, because it will mean even fewer deaths and injuries on our roads nationally. The trouble is that the figures for mid-Essex over the past few years, and particularly for the 10 months of this year so far, show that it will be extraordinarily difficult to get anywhere near reaching those targets. Indeed, I wonder whether it will be possible unless something can be done.
  In 1998 in mid-Essex—the Braintree and Chelmsford police divisions, which include the constituencies of all three hon. Members in the Chamber tonight—15 people were killed and 1,558 were injured on the roads. So far this year—I only have figures for the nine months up to 30 September—35 people have been killed and 1,633 have been injured. In 1998 in Essex as a whole, 84 people were killed in road accidents, and this year, up to and including this week so far, 110 people have been killed.
  Mid-Essex is not a third of the size of the county of Essex and it certainly does not have a third of the population, yet it contributes to slightly more than a third of the deaths in the county. I am genuinely perplexed as to why. Are the accidents alcohol related? I welcome the initiative being tested by the pilot schemes, but perhaps
  952
  there is too much speeding. Is the standard of driving declining? Perhaps people are becoming immune to the dangers of driving because they drive so often. They see that 99.9 per cent. of the time they are not involved in accidents and they forget the potential dangers of losing concentration and of not always ensuring that they drive safely and within the speed limits, watching out for the actions of other drivers who cause accidents through no fault of their own.
  I do not know the answers. I am worried about that because, if one does not know the cause of a problem, it is much more difficult to find a solution and to minimise the tragedies. I certainly do not have a panacea for getting back on track in reducing road accidents and deaths, although I know that it is not an easy problem to solve. I shall therefore be genuinely interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I hope that her Department has some idea of what might be done to improve the situation. It might have more up-to-date information and statistics showing why road safety has deteriorated in my part of the country, which seems to be at variance with what is happening nationwide.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: With the Minister's leave, I hope to say a few words in support of my constituency neighbour—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has the permission of the Minister and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to take part in the debate?
  Mr. Hurst: I sought the permission of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and I was about to seek the Minister's permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I support most of the remarks made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. One can speculate about the reasons for the unusually high number of road traffic accidents in mid-Essex. For example, we have had an exceptional amount of rain in the past nine months—but then again, so have other parts of Essex and the United Kingdom. Essex has also had exceptional population growth around the constituency of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, on the edge of the constituency of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), and certainly around the main town in my constituency. Houses are being built at an enormous rate, creating much more traffic.
  Another factor is the various road schemes to which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford referred. The Great Leighs bypass is proceeding very rapidly, and the A 130 is progressing rapidly into the southern part of Chelmsford. We are also awaiting development of the Hatfield Peverel to Witham link road, which I should like to mention very briefly, and which has featured in previous Adjournment debates.
  It was announced as long ago as January 1998 that that link road would proceed. Since then, preparation for the scheme has meandered very slowly, only now to be confronted with a public inquiry. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber would like that public inquiry

  953
  itself to proceed quickly, with a view to our having a road at least before the fifth anniversary of the announcement of the scheme.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Hatfield Peverel. He will be as horribly familiar with the roadworks there as I have become in the past few weeks. Does he think that it is possible that, because those roadworks are causing such huge congestion to motorists trying to use the A12, many people are leaving the A12 to seek alternative routes, causing a build-up of traffic on minor roads that were probably never designed to cope with the number of cars now using them because of the roadworks? That in itself may be contributing to the problem and is another reason why we all want those roadworks to be completed as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Hurst: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's speculation on the issue. On a number of occasions recently I have crossed back-country lanes through his constituency and my own to avoid those roadworks.
  I do not think that any of those factors alone have created the increase in road traffic accidents. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford emphasised the consequences of speeding. Another enemy to road safety that is growing apace is the practice of tailgating. In 1963, when I qualified to drive motorcars, my late father told me, "Whatever you do, son, keep back from the vehicle in front if you wish to overtake." It seems that that policy has disappeared and that the policy of other drivers is to get as close as they can to the vehicle in front so that they can overtake quickly. The practice creates a dangerous situation on many roads on which it is not possible to manoeuvre.
  I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I should like to see a concerted campaign by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to reduce the practice of tailgating and draw people's attention to its risk. It is a major hazard and is probably a major determinant of road accidents.
  I think that, with the road schemes that are proceeding, the future for mid-Essex is probably brighter. At least those roads will become safer. I also agree entirely that, by its nature, dualling of the A120 west to Stansted will assist greatly. Of course, we also look forward to a sensitive scheme that creates a better carriageway through to the A12 east of Braintree. I believe that such a scheme is being considered. However, it will have to take very acute account of the villages and environment between Braintree and the A12.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): Let me begin by extending condolences that I am sure the whole House will wish to extend to the families of those bereaved in the most recent accident. Let me also acknowledge the depth of concern about the subject among Members representing the constituencies involved—shown, I think, by the attendance of a number of Essex Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) is also present.
  954
  I do not want to go into all the figures, because the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has set them out very clearly. So far we have made good progress towards achieving what are ambitious targets for dealing with road deaths and road accidents, although of course each death is one too many, and our task will not be completed until we have made such accidents a thing of the past. I want to focus on Essex, however, and on the issues that have been raised tonight.
  The local transport plan for Essex county council contains targets to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured that are very much in line with national targets. The recently submitted annual progress report, which presents progress in the first year of the plan, shows that 1,122 people were killed and seriously injured on the roads of Essex in 2000. That is 5 per cent. less than the 1994–98 average. The number of children killed and seriously injured was already 18 per cent. below the baseline average.
  Because of the hon. Gentleman's special interest, my Department also obtained more up-to-date figures for Essex from the county council. I can therefore tell him that 9 per cent. fewer people were killed or seriously injured in the 12 months ending in August 2001 than in the previous 12 months. I hope to see a further overall reduction in the number killed and seriously injured on the roads of Essex in the calendar year 2001 compared with 2000, showing that Essex is working hard to play its part in meeting the national target reductions.
  However, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are some specific problems within the overall figures. He said that there had been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of people killed on the roads in the same August-to-August period. That apparent reversal of a previous downward trend is very disturbing, and I share his concern. I understand that the increase is largely due to more accidents and casualties involving motorcyclists. Indeed, over the same period non-motorcycling deaths fell by 6 per cent. 1 have asked my Department to work closely with Essex county council and the police to establish the reasons behind the increases, and to look at ways of combating the problem.
  I understand that the county council has reported a significant increase in the number of motorcyclists on the roads in Essex in recent years, and that there has been a sharp increase in leisure motorcycling. That is not confined to young people; older people have returned to riding motorbikes as a leisure activity. Already a working partnership between the police and local authorities, including Chelmsford borough council, has been set up to identify why that is happening and to look at some of the profound issues that it raises, including safety issues.
  The police are offering motorcyclists in Essex an opportunity to improve and develop their riding skills through a recent initiative, which seeks to reduce motorcycle injury and theft. It is called "the edge". and the hon. Gentleman may well have heard about it. I am sure that he could use his high profile on the whole issue of road safety to support the project. The county council will soon publish a motorcycling strategy setting out a number of related actions that will work together to create better motorcycling facilities in the county, and to promote safer motorcycling.
  My Department is examining the disproportionately high casualty rate among motorcyclists. We are working closely with organisations in the industry, riders,

  955
  manufacturers, retailers and instructors to develop better training and testing programmes, to consider the need for extra protection for both vehicle and rider, and to raise awareness of the vulnerability of motorcyclists among all road users.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of speed in accidents. It is believed that excessive speed is probably one of the main contributory factors in road traffic accidents. In Essex, about 26 per cent. of all road accidents are related to speeding. That is a reduction from 32 per cent. five years ago. For accidents involving fatalities, the figure rises to a quite staggering 90 per cent. Research evidence shows that 70 per cent. of vehicles exceed the 30 mph speed limit.
  We are committed to reducing excessive speeding on all our roads. It is one of the highest priorities for accident reduction. We have a number of programmes involving education, training, highway engineering and enforcement, as well as speed cameras, of course.
  As far back as 1996, Essex county council launched a speed commitment campaign to encourage local drivers to sign a commitment to drive within the speed limit at all times, which has been very successful. Thousands of organisations and individual motorists have signed up.
  The local transport plan for Essex sets out some new initiatives. Particular emphasis is being placed on the need to change attitudes to speed among the young and among inexperienced drivers, who remain one of the largest groups in the casualty statistics. I am very encouraged by the work that is being done to train and educate our motorists about the antisocial dangers of speeding, as well of course as the problem of tailgating.
  We are also encouraging all local authorities to improve the standards of their road network and to apply accident reduction engineering measures to accident clusters. Essex has about 200 sites that are receiving attention, with many grouped together in a whole route action plan. I understand that this year's programme includes the implementation of action plans for the A1060 Chelmsford to Bishop's Stortford road and the B1018 Braintree to Witham road. The construction of the new A131 Great Leighs bypass and the A 130 improvements are also well under way.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems on the A12 and the improvements there, so he may want some more information about the progress that is being made. The improvements to the A12 are currently being considered as part of the London to Ipswich multi-modal study, which started in October 2000 and will report to the regional planning body in June 2002. The highway authorities are undertaking a route management strategy along the A12, to include measures over the next 10 years. Although, unfortunately, it will not happen straight away, there will be steady and progressive improvements along that route.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the role of safety cameras. In April 2000, we launched the trial scheme that allows the funding of speed and red light safety cameras by "netting off', with money collected from fixed penalty speeding fines being reinvested into more cameras. The Essex partnership was one of the first to join the scheme, as indeed was my own local authority.
  956
  Results from the first year of operation have been very encouraging, and hon. Members will recall that the Minister for Transport announced in August this year that the scheme would be rolled out nationally. Across the eight areas that made up the initial trial there has been a 47 per cent. reduction in the number killed and seriously injured at camera sites and an 18 per cent. reduction elsewhere in the pilot areas.
  Quite often, the cameras are not the most popular things, because they have produced quite a lot of speeding tickets, but if one considers the number of people who are alive now who would not have been otherwise, it is easy to see that they have been extremely worth while. In Essex, before the introduction of the scheme, 68 per cent. of motorists exceeded the speed limit at camera sites. That has now fallen to 11 per cent
  I want to touch on issues of local transport funding, because the importance of local authorities and the police working together to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads cannot be overstated. The introduction of the local transport plans means that authorities must now have clear strategies for road safety in their areas. The draft road safety strategy for Essex has been out to consultation and I understand that it will be published shortly.
  In December last year we allocated Essex £13 million for integrated transport, including road safety, in its local transport plan. That was more than double the allocation for integrated transport in the previous year. It will enable Essex to make real progress in meeting the challenging targets that have been set. I cannot comment today on the allocation to Essex for next year, but the announcement will be made shortly—we expect it to be made next month. However, I can say that Essex can proceed with some confidence on the basis of the indicative allocations for the rest of the five-year plan period.
  We are committed to working with all local authorities to see a significant reduction in road deaths and injuries and to make road safety a high priority. I know that much work remains to be done and I agree that any death or injury on our roads is an unnecessary tragedy. I am. however, convinced that we can see a significant reduction in the accident statistics in the future. Given the problems that Essex has experienced, I am sure that that will be very welcome to the constituents of those hon. Members present for this debate.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford has done well to raise several important issues regarding road deaths and injuries in mid-Essex. I know that he has kept a consistently high profile on the issue and ensured that it is at the forefront of the public debate. The Government, through the road safety strategy, have already begun to tackle many of those issues on a national level, but we will continue to rely heavily on the direct help of local authorities and the police in striving to achieve our road casualty reduction figures. Further effort on all our parts will bring about the improvements in road safety that we all seek, and will protect lives and reduce some of the horrendous injuries that too many people in Essex and elsewhere have suffered over the years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Ten o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 81) (HC 276) on 2001–02 Special Grant for Gypsy Sites Refurbishment, which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 357, Noes 1.

  Division No. 61]

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clwyd, Ann

  Austin, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Baker, Norman

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barrett, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corston, Jean

  Beard, Nigel

  Cotter, Brian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Beggs, Roy

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Hilary

  Cranston, Ross

  Betts, Clive

  Crausby, David

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Breed, Colin

  David, Wayne

  Brooke, Annette

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

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

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bryant, Chris

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burden, Richard

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Burgon, Colin

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burnham, Andy

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burnside, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  Burstow, Paul

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Doughty, Sue

  Cairns, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caplin, Ivor

  Etherington, Bill

  Casale, Roger

  Farrelly, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  Challen, Colin

  Flynn, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foulkes, George

  958

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gapes, Mike

  Laws, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Levitt, Tom

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Lucas, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Luke, Iain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lyons, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hancock, Mike

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  McCafferty, Chris

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harvey, Nick

  MacDonald, Calum

  Havard, Dai

  McFall, John

  Healey, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Heath, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McKechin, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Heppell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Heyes, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hill, Keith

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mallaber, Judy

  Holmes, Paul

  Mann, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miliband, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moore, Michael

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Moran, Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Julie

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jamieson, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  Oaten, Mark

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Owen, Albert

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Perham, Linda

  Keetch, Paul

  Picking, Anne

  Kelly, Ruth

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pike, Peter

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

  Plaskitt, James

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lamb, Norman

  Purchase, Ken

  Lammy, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  959

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Rapson, Syd

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Rendel, David

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

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Soley, Clive

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Southworth, Helen

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Squire, Rachel

  Ross, Ernie

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Roy, Frank

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ruane, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Ruddock, Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Ryan, Joan

  Stringer, Graham

  Salter, Martin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Sanders, Adrian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Sawford, Phil

  Tami, Mark

  Sheerman, Barry

  Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  960

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Watts, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Webb, Steve

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  White, Brian

  Thurso, John

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Williams. Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Willis, Phil

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winterton, Ms Rose (Doncaster C)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Worthington, Tony

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth).

  Tynan, Bill

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wyatt. Derek

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Wareing, Robert N

  NOES

  Hunter, Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Airline Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Wilshire: I should be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would pass on to Mr. Speaker my thanks for being given this opportunity to raise an issue of fundamental importance to the British economy and, equally important to my constituents, Heathrow airport. I should also like to thank those involved in the aviation industry, including the airlines and the airport, who have helped me with much of the information on which I shall draw in the debate. It may be a surprise to hear a Conservative Member thank the Transport and General Workers Union for its help, but that makes the point that this is a national and local, not a party-political, issue.
Before I come to the substance of my speech, I want to make three preliminary points. First, whenever we discuss events that arise from 11 September and from Monday of this week, we must keep in mind that we are debating personal family tragedies because people have lost loved ones, and now people have loved ones at risk in Afghanistan. Whatever else we may say and however much we might argue, the foundation of the debate is personal family tragedy, and I want to add my regards to and concern for all those who have been affected by those events.
Secondly, despite what happened on 11 September and on Monday, air travel is still a safe activity. It is easy to become rapidly alarmed by such events, especially when one represents a community near an airport, as I do, and I understand those anxieties. I represent 70,000 people who live right next to Heathrow, near the boundary fence, and I live under a flight path, so I need no lectures about what that is like. The last time there was a crash at Heathrow, the Trident landed in my constituency. The community that I represent is directly involved, and the closer one gets to the airport, the more understanding and philosophical people are. It is easy to talk about the risks of living near an airport, as I heard on the media last night, but I remind everyone who becomes involved in the debate about safety that the Lockerbie crash occurred nowhere near any airport, so we must not allow ourselves to be carried away by the understandable emotion and anxiety surrounding that point.
Thirdly, my approach to the subject is not party political; I speak for all my constituents. I represent many people who use Heathrow regularly. I represent many shareholders of British Airways and the British Airports Authority. I represent many senior and middle managers—the bosses—and many people who belong to trade unions and who work at the airport. I represent 70,000 people, every one of whom is touched in some way by aviation. I speak for them all, not for any particular group.
250WH
The British aviation industry faces a serious crisis and needs help from many sources, including the Government. I sought the debate because of my constituency connection. A growing number of my constituents face crisis and need help. The local context is that 26 per cent. of those among my constituents who are in work depend directly on Heathrow for their livelihood. In that sense, my constituency is similar to, say, a coal mining or shipbuilding community in its reliance on just one industry.
It is easy to see my part of what many people consider to be west London—I protest that it was, historically, in Middlesex and is now in Surrey—as commuter country but that is not so. I represent people inextricably linked to the airport. At least 10,000 jobs have been, or will be, lost from the major airlines, and it is impossible to predict how many more will be lost among the airport's smaller employers. It is equally impossible to derive a constituency figure for how many of those job losses will affect Spelthorne. My best guess—it is only a guess, but I think that it is not too wide of the mark—is that between 2,000 and 3,000 of my constituents must be worried about their future, and they face a bleak Christmas.
Beyond the immediate job losses, the knock-on effect will be huge and is impossible to determine. Many depend on the airport, such as freight forwarders, spare part suppliers and catering businesses around the airport. The crisis will affect them all. Many more people will be indirectly affected, such as shopkeepers and garage proprietors in Spelthorne. All of them will feel the impact of what is taking place. That is why I sought the debate.
We must understand the causes of the crisis so that we may focus our suggestions for help. Some will say that the crisis is being hyped out of proportion to reality. Everyone must accept, however, that one cause of the crisis dates from before 11 September. The downturn in the world economy had an impact on aviation and one must accept that overcapacity in the aviation industry was already resulting in a shake-out. Although those problems arose before 11 September, they are no less real and they have affected current events.
One need not stress the horror of the events of 11 September. I retain to this day an image of what seems like a Hollywood movie. I find it hard to understand the reality of what happened that day. None the less, the impact on the world aviation industry, and on the British industry in particular, was immediate and dramatic. Two months on, some may have thought that the worst was behind us, that the crisis might be bottoming out and that people might be pulling their businesses together again. Then came Monday when a tragedy that seems to have been a dreadful coincidence—I imagine that what happened then will eventually be established as having been an accident—clearly set back any bottoming out of the crisis.
One other cause of the crisis requires our understanding. The events of 11 September and of Monday were catastrophic and tragic, but they also happened in the United States. The significance of that fact is that half the world's aviation market is in the United States, which contains the world's biggest carriers. The two tragedies unsettled the world's aviation business, but had their biggest impact on the largest part of that business. For that reason, the wider impact has been all the greater.

251WH
We must understand the nature of the crisis as well as its causes. The crisis that has hit the British aviation industry has been dramatic. There has been an instant drop in demand, with awful consequences, and an immediate increase in costs. Insurance and security costs have increased. It is easy to focus on aircraft security because people understand it. The newspapers write about it, and when people travel they witness the effects of increased security on themselves and their baggage. There are, however, other security costs. Far less known but none the less serious for constituencies such as mine and for businesses such as the aviation industry, is the dramatic extra security cost on cargo handling. That will have an effect on jobs and on British business.
Many of those costs cannot be passed on. Newspapers and television programmes usually give examples of scheduled airlines. It could be argued that those airlines are hardest hit, but there is much less debate about charter airlines, which, particularly in this country, make up a large segment of the industry. I have before me some figures from the charter holiday trade. On 1 October, there were approximately 5 million advance bookings. Those who go on package holidays know only too well that once they have paid their money and entered into the contract, they are stuck with their part of it, and the ability to pass on extra costs from the charter airline is not good. Some 5 million people are, therefore, locked into contracts, and the suppliers of the flights face insurance and security costs, which they cannot recover. The impact of that on charter airlines could be considerable.
This debate is not solely about scheduled airlines, although that is easy to forget if one represents a constituency such as mine, because there is no charter business in and out of Heathrow. However, that affects others. It is easy to consider the drop in demand and the increased costs, but there are knock-on effects, to which I have already referred. There are considerable support industries to the aviation industry. For example, we all eat airline meals. Whether or not one likes the food, providing it creates jobs around an airport, so airport communities will lose jobs as a result.
I shall refer later to the impact on Heathrow, but if there are fewer passengers and fewer flights, there is less revenue for the airports and that has an effect on them. Air traffic control is a particularly British issue, although I enter into the debate with as much care as I can, as I promised that this would not be a party political issue. We have had some debate about Railtrack, partly because of the need to invest. I will not go further than that, as I do not want to re-open that subject. Air traffic control was part privatised by the Government so that private money could be brought into air traffic control services and investment could take place. We have rapidly got to the stage where investment for future improvement of the service in Prestwick in Scotland has been pushed back, for the simple reason that air traffic control depends on the same principle of aircraft movements to generate its revenue. I simply flag up, without trying to score any points, that we need to be careful about the future of air traffic control in Britain after this crisis. I am not suggesting that what has happened will compromise
252WH
safety, but it may compromise investment. That would lead to a diversion of world aviation business to our competitors and away from us. That is my concern, but I shall go no further than that.
The other obvious knock-on effect is on aircraft manufacturing. We note with concern that Boeing has said that it will lay off 30,000 people. What is less understood is how little of a Boeing aircraft is made directly by the company itself. All over the world businesses are making bits of Boeing and other aircraft. I do not have a figure for the total number of jobs in the United Kingdom that depend on Boeing contracts, but it looks as though the Minister does, and I am sure that he will give it to us in a moment. Nevertheless, the figure is large, as it is with the airbus. British Airways expects the delivery of 50 more airbuses during the next few years and will seek to renegotiate, cancel or delay some of those options, which conveys some sense of the impact on jobs in the manufacturing industry.
The last issue of concern is the knock-on effect on tourism. I have no figures, but it is blindingly obvious that we are suffering. At the moment, one has only to queue for the London Eye to find that no American accents are to be heard there. Indeed, there is often no queue at all. What is happening is clear from anecdotes alone.
We need to be clear about the extent of the problems that British airlines face. About 38 per cent. of British Airways' capacity worldwide is on the north Atlantic route, which has been hit hardest. Virgin Atlantic depends on the north Atlantic routes for about 60 per cent. of its passengers and is in a vulnerable position. In the first week after 11 September, British Airways experienced a 60 per cent. fall in its north Atlantic traffic. Throughout all its routes, there was a 36 per cent. decline in passenger numbers. For the longer term, British Airways anticipates between 20 and 30 per cent. fewer passengers. It does not specify for how long a period, but that is a question of how long the current crisis will last. The effects of the Gulf war seemed to last about four years. If the current crisis lasts a similar length of time, it would be big indeed. Virgin Atlantic reports a decline in north Atlantic business of 25 per cent., and the figure is higher in its business class, which is where most of its profits are made. Virgin Atlantic is finding the impact of the situation worse than that during the Gulf war—although others say that it is not as bad.
It is important to consider the question of insurance. There have been immediate cancellations of some policies, the immediate imposition of significant increases, extra payments per person, extra payments per aircraft and stringent extra conditions attached to new policies. That has been done on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and a company can do nothing without insurance.
That is the nature of the crisis. We must also clarify the consequences for British aviation. First and foremost is the issue of cash flow. The aviation industry is not a manufacturing industry. It is not an industry in which, if times get difficult, one can sell off stock, or if times get more difficult, in which one can build up stock. Airlines cannot do that. They are service providers, and as such, they have no means of falling back on manufacturing to delay or spread the effects of a crisis. Airlines either fly today or cancel; their product is here

253WH
and then it is gone. They are service providers and they are hardest hit in a downturn. It shows up instantly in cash flow. Without warning, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, which depend so heavily on the north Atlantic routes, found that their entire income from those routes was closed off for four days.
If one believes the media, BA is losing something in the order of £2 million a day. That is a dramatic figure. One can speculate on what would happen if the cash flow of the four major airlines of Europe were to be switched off and they had to try to survive on reserves. According to the figures that have been calculated for me, Lufthansa would be the worst hit because it could survive for only 16 days on its cash reserves. Air France could manage for 29 days before going bankrupt. KLM could manage for 37 days and BA could survive for 40 days. We need to be honest. We are kidding ourselves if we pretend that the big European carriers are immune from bankruptcy. Some high stakes are being played for here.
Cash flow is the most obvious problem. The second most obvious problem is the cancellation of routes. British Airways has grounded 20 aircraft. Virgin Atlantic has grounded all its 747s. The only beneficiary from this exercise is the Evergreen air centre in Arizona, which provides storage space in the desert for unwanted aircraft. It is expecting well over 100 aircraft in the immediate future to join the others on their airfield. One of the most significant consequences is that whitetails—aircraft that have not even been painted in any airline's colours because they have never been used—are being mothballed. That gives some idea of the implications for airlines and manufacturers. I have not found it possible to come up with a complete list of the routes that have been suspended or cancelled but there are plenty of them. That clearly has a knock-on effect to passengers wanting to get from A to B who no longer find that possible.
Then we come to jobs. I do not know the exact figures although I know the current minimum figures for job losses. In the US alone between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs have been lost. At the last count BA had announced that it needed to shed 7,000 of its 60,000 employees. If things do not improve that figure will be bigger. British Midland, the next of the big carriers at Heathrow, has announced 600 job losses. That is more than 10 per cent. of its work force and half of the losses will be at Heathrow. Virgin Atlantic has announced 1,200 job losses. It is important to understand that when one is trying to deal with a cash flow crisis reducing staff gives no relief in the short term. Those are preliminary figures: unless action is taken or an upturn comes that is only the beginning of the job losses in the industry.
It should also be borne in mind that not only is the aviation industry suffering this immediate impact, but its long-term position is being undermined. Those aircraft that are being sent to Arizona and even some of those that are still operational were once all assets. Some are now valueless. A business that had good assets and good long-term prospects for using its aircraft suddenly finds itself having to write down its assets. In many cases those aircraft are not owned by the airlines themselves. They are leased and the banks and many others are finding that what they thought was good business may suddenly be turning into bad business. The knock-on
254WH
effect of that is clear. The bottom line in any consideration of the effect on the aviation industry must be profit, because profit brings growth and continued employment.
The best figures that I know for the effects of the Gulf war suggest that the world aviation industry lost some $15 billion in the four years that followed. Some people suggest that the world aviation industry will lose $12 billion in the first year following 11 September. If we are to believe financial analysts, British Airways alone is set to lose £600 million this year. It lost £125 million in the month following 11 September.
We cannot consider the aviation industry without considering airports, so I shall focus on the one that I know best. Heathrow airport reports that it had 900,000 fewer passengers this October than in October last year. That is a decrease of 20 per cent. Some might say that that is good news, but that is not so for my constituents, or for the airlines, BAA or those who work in duty-free shops. Some may not like duty-free shops, but they create employment for my constituents. All those factors add up to a serious situation.
BAA has produced only one redeeming statistic: it reports that the passenger decrease is less than it was during the Gulf war. That is the opposite of what others report, so we are receiving some mixed messages. Airports suffer because of the charge levied per passenger and per aircraft. That has a knock-on effect on airport businesses.
I should like to explain why I wanted a debate on the topic, and why 1 want the Government to do something. Some might smile quietly or show surprise that a Tory Member should urge the Government to become involved and rescue a private industry, but I have good and compelling reasons for doing so, and they do not compromise my political principles. United Kingdom airlines play a vital role in the economy. They are a lynchpin in the success of UK plc, and all of us, the Government included, must take care of them.
Whether we like it or not—I do not—we must accept that the world aviation industry is hugely Government-regulated. There are frequent debates about flag carriers. Aeroplanes are not allowed to land, take off, or pick up passengers unless some Government say that they can. Whether or not we approve, such private industries are beholden to Governments all over the world to carry on their businesses, so we cannot escape discussions with Governments when considering the industry.
We must face up to the fact that foreign airlines, which are just as troubled as British airlines, receive massive amounts of Government aid to keep them afloat. If we do not take note, we will lose the most jobs, while foreign Governments support local airlines at our expense.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-BrownMy hon. Friend has touched on an extremely important point. Does he recognise that the Government must keep in close touch with the European Union competition authorities to see what state aid EU countries are likely to give to their flag carriers? It would be unacceptable

255WH
for our flag carriers to compete on unequal terms with EU countries' flag carriers that have received subsidies from their Governments.
Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say, and knows that I am unlikely not to mention the EU in such a speech, although I keep it in mind that my party likes to sideline the subject. Nevertheless, we cannot escape discussing the EU, because it is a subject to which the Government must respond. We cannot leave it to the EU to respond to the crisis for reasons that I will mention in a moment. It is simply not adequate to say that it is an EU problem, not a British Government problem.
Without apology, I am advancing the argument that aviation is a special case. I know that everyone always tries that argument, but on this occasion I think that I am right to do so. Aviation as an industry is untypically vulnerable. Therefore, when a crisis arises, particularly an unexpected and instant crisis such as the present one, that industry is much more likely to need support. As I have explained, for the simple reason that airlines are service providers, the effect on them is dramatic, and they do not have time to take avoiding action.
However, in saying that the Government must take action, I would not escape with my life until lunchtime, and Michael Bishop of British Midland would not let me get away with it, if I did not add the caveat that any Government help from any country must not be an excuse to bail out uncompetitive, unprofitable airlines. There is a dividing line, and I readily acknowledge that the case for Government help can be made for genuine reasons or used as an excuse to continue some of the nonsenses of the past.
My hon. Friend touched on foreign aid, and we need to understand what we are up against and why we cannot leave the matter to the EU. Its approach—I mean this kindly—is to say that its business is to ensure a level playing field within the internal market. If that is what the treaty of Rome is all about, it is right that the EU should ensure that British Airways can compete with Iberia, Alitalia and other airlines on a level playing field. However, that is not the point, because the real competition does not come from the rest of the EU. We have to achieve a level playing field between us and the United States.
To understand why fairly urgent and radical action is required, we need only consider what the American Government are doing. They instantly gave US airlines some $5 billion in cash to see them over their difficulties and backed that up with another $10 billion worth of guarantees. The US Government are also providing several billion dollars worth of help for extra security measures and $150 million to support routes in the US, which they know as thin routes. That is what we are up against and it will hit us hard if we do not take action.
Notwithstanding the European Union, Sabena—do we not love it dearly?—is bankrupt yet again, and Belgium is bailing it out to the tune of $391 million as a straightforward internal national exercise. The French have provided $276 million in aid for its airlines, and the last I heard Italy was debating whether to waive VAT on domestic ticket sales to help its aviation industry. All
256WH
that help is provided on a national basis. Admittedly, the EU will support some of that help, but they are not EU initiatives. The only European initiative of which I am aware is the allowing of short-term help for insurance costs.
Let me explain what I hope the Government response to the crisis will be. As I stressed initially, I am not criticising the Government: I am trying to work with them as they are working with everyone at Heathrow and elsewhere. The crisis requires all of us to work together. Immediate responses and confidence building are needed, and longer-term issues have to be considered.
Incidentally, I am aware that the Government attended a meeting at Heathrow to discuss those issues. Indeed, I am sure that the Minister will refer to it. It is sad to report, however, that no Conservative councillor or Member of Parliament was invited to that meeting. I stress that that was not the fault of the Government, who attended the meeting as the guests of its organisers.
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is interesting to note, however, that on this occasion only the Minister is present on the Labour Benches.
Mr. Wilshire: Yes. Those who set up that meeting do not want to get involved when Conservatives on the other side of the airport raise these issues. However, I will not pursue that matter.
The Government are giving short-term insurance help to the aviation industry and I urge them to make it longer term, because the effect of increased premiums will not go away within the Government's time scale. I have no quarrel with many of the necessary security requirements, but they are nationally imposed standards, not airline-imposed requirements. It is possible to go even further to reassure the travelling public, and the Government should think about making financial help available for the extra security costs.
Cash handouts are not popular in my party, but I plead for one in this case because every operator on the north Atlantic route instantly lost four days' business, without being able to take precautions. British aviation companies are having to carry losses of £48 million because of the shutdown of the north Atlantic routes, unlike those of other countries, whose Governments did something about it. There is scope for help from the Government, which they may care to consider: they raise about £1 billion a year from passenger duty, so they have a ready means of showing their support for the aviation industry in the short-to-medium term by returning some or all of the £1 billion.
The Government must make it clear immediately, notwithstanding the fact that they want to play fair by the European Union or that they are led by someone who wants to be at the heart of Europe, that on this occasion they will stand up for the national interest. They must say, "We will work with the European Union but we will not be dictated to unless and until everyone else is, and unless and until the European Union deals with the unfair competition from the United States."
It is a technical matter, but the Government should also consider giving immediate help to airports by way of indemnities against war risk.

257WH
I have outlined what I think should be the Government's immediate responses and I shall now say what should be done to build confidence, as this is not only a factual, dull, dry economic debate, but a hearts and minds debate, too. The Government have one card that they can play with the minimum of effort to build confidence: they can take the opportunity to say, "We give permission to build terminal 5." The Minister would probably love to say so here and now, but I do not think that he will do so, and I understand why. However, it would help if he went back to the office and said, "Please, please."
The biggest single boost to the British aviation industry, especially in my constituency, would be to give T5 the go-ahead now. We need that confidence building; it would be a shot in the arm and proof that we have confidence in the future, not only of Heathrow but of British aviation, and show that we are determined to act straight away. Even if action is taken now it must be understood that the delay to the decision on terminal 5 has caused much harm—apart from utterly discrediting the British planning system with the farce and nonsense at the public inquiry. The delay in allowing T5 to go ahead has cost UK airlines dear.
A few years ago, before Heathrow became so overcrowded, passengers could be ticketed through that airport in three quarters of an hour. The process now takes an hour and a quarter and it is getting longer, which means that many people who used to use Heathrow in transit are choosing other routes. They are not going via Stansted, Gatwick, Manchester or Bristol but choosing Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt, thus jobs and opportunities go to other countries.
The delay in T5 has helped foreign competition. While we have dithered and listened endlessly to the head-in-the-sand brigade—who seem determined to close Heathrow and bankrupt my constituency—foreign competitors have laughed happily. Charles de Gaulle airport alone has built a terminal and a runway while we squabbled. We have undermined UK plc by undermining Heathrow. I know that the growth of an airport upsets some people, and the growth in Heathrow during the past five years has been about 14 per cent.—some say that that should not have happened, but I say that it should have—but during the same period, Charles de Gaulle in Paris has grown by 54 per cent. That is a direct threat to local jobs and UK plc. In 1990, Heathrow was the No. 1 European hub for destinations served out of that airport. Today it is fourth, after Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
One other factor that we must make clear on terminal 5, confidence building and helping the British aviation industry—I say this with feeling to the head-in-the-sand brigade who are desperately trying to wreck my constituency—is that the 15 debate is not about safety. Trying to scare people on the back of an application to build a terminal is irresponsible. The number of flights adds to the safety risk, not the number of passengers, and terminals are about passengers, not the number of flights. The T5 debate is not rendered unnecessary by the events of 11 September, because Heathrow was overcrowded anyway and, despite the 900,000 fewer passengers last month, is still overcrowded. Many of the passengers who want to use terminal 5 already use the airport and still use it, despite recent events. Even if the downturn in the aviation industry of the past few
258WH
weeks continues for the same length of time as the Gulf war, that would not be an argument against T5. Even if the Minister were to stand up in a minute and say, "I allow it now," the terminal would not be operational until 2007. If anyone is suggesting that the crisis will last until 2007, I can say only heaven help the British aviation industry.
T5 is the confidence boost that the industry wants now, and I wish people would stop continually harping on and saying that an unbuilt terminal caused last year's flooding and led to an outbreak of ragwort on Staines moor. They say that a terminal 4 inspector, had he had a crystal ball and been able to see the future, would have taken a different decision. He would not have done. If that inspector could have seen the future, he would have backed a grand national winner and gone to live in the Bahamas. He would not have bothered to get involved in planning applications.
The Government should consider longer-term measures to help the British aviation industry. They should learn from what the United States has done to help its industry and take a far tougher line in bilateral negotiations with it. All too often, we roll over and play dead at the first shout of a threat from the USA. I am in favour of open skies across the Atlantic, but only if that is fair to both sides and not an American attempt to bankrupt us and bail out its airlines. We must take a tougher stance in negotiations.
We must take steps to help consolidation in the European aviation industry, provided that we do not damage our interests by being kinder than anyone else. One difficulty of competing with the Americans is that we have much smaller airlines. It is easy to fool ourselves and think that our big players are the biggest in the world, but they are not. They are at the top end of the medium-sized players or the bottom end of the big players, and are vulnerable. In the Brussels discussions, the Government must resist the European Union's crazy idea of imposing a tax on aviation fuel while it applies only in the EU. It will simply cripple us if we allow others to use untaxed fuel while EU airlines cannot. Having said that, I will not be party political, so I gently urge the Government to introduce an aviation policy; they have been silent for four or five years. We need to know where we are going and to take decisions about our runways and infrastructure. Information on those issues would help.
I make no apology for my long contribution, because the issue affects the whole of the United Kingdom and forms a basic part of a prosperous British economy. It fundamentally affects my constituency and others immediately around the airport. As I said at the beginning, what has happened arose from personal tragedies, mainly in the United States, and our hearts go out to all the families that have been affected. However, a serious crisis faces the British aviation industry. Problems will be experienced in the constituencies of all colleagues who represent areas immediately near airports. Whether we like it or not, whatever our party politics, the problems will be solved only by Government action, alongside the actions of the airlines. The airlines are doing everything that they possibly can to meet the crisis, which they could not have expected and for which, therefore, they could not have planned. Without Government assistance, they will be struggling.

259WH
The issue transcends party politics. All local and national politicians of whatever political persuasion must work with the Government to meet the crisis and to ensure that our industries, people and jobs survive.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): As we are now 46 minutes into a 90-minute debate, it might be useful if I remind hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member who is about to address the House, that it is customary to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before termination, which will be at 11 o'clock. We will commence the winding-up speeches at 10.30 am.
10.17 am
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for this timely debate. Like his constituents, many of mine work at Heathrow and depend for their livelihood on the vigour, strength and prosperity of the airline industry, and that is the case throughout west London. The industry is crucial to London's economy as a whole. The London airport system includes Heathrow in the west, Luton in the north, Stansted to the north-east, City, and even the two business airports at Farnborough and Biggin Hill. It is important to our country's prosperity that we develop policies that will revive the airline industry, which has suffered acutely not just from the economic downturn but from the acts of aerial terrorism on 11 September. Obviously, confidence in the industry will have been further shaken by the recent tragic accident involving an American Airlines airbus in New York.
It behoves us all to see what we can do to help the industry. I am sure that most hon. Members were deeply impressed by the lobby from airline workers last week. I addressed a huge meeting, as did other hon. Members, at which I said that the Government must introduce a policy for the air transport industry at the earliest possible date. As my hon. Friend made clear, that is overdue and now is the time to do it.
No decision would give greater confidence to the industry and the travelling public than a favourable decision on T5. The opening of that terminal as early as possible—my hon. Friend says that it could not be done before 2007—would help British Airways to consolidate its operations at Heathrow. It would also assist the smooth flow of passengers. The current terminal system was designed for a maximum of 54 million passengers a year, but around 62 million a year now use it in conditions of some discomfort. That must be rectified by the construction of the overdue fifth terminal and improvements to the surface transport system to help to bring passengers more smoothly and easily into the fifth terminal and into Heathrow for the benefit of our airlines. The airport needs railway links from Reading and Waterloo, the construction of the M25 motorway spur and, last but not least, the crossrail link. Surface transport access is an important determinant for passengers in deciding from which airport to depart.
It is noteworthy that in October passenger numbers fell by 12.7 per cent. at Gatwick and some 20 per cent. at Heathrow, but increased by 4.9 per cent. at Stansted. To a large extent, that was because north Atlantic traffic
260WH
suffered severely after the aerial terrorism in the United States in September. Numbers fell by one third at Gatwick and Heathrow. Regional traffic and intra-European traffic has not been so adversely affected and airport passenger figures have increased not just at Stansted, but at Scottish airports. It is interesting that low-cost carriers such as easyJet, Ryanair, go and buzz and, to some degree, British Midland are weathering the storm more effectively than the high-cost flag carriers.
In the aftermath of the demise of Sabena and Swissair and, most recently, of Canada's No. 2 carrier, it is instructive to ensure that the European Commission produces measures on a European scale to allow a competitive environment to exist while tiding the industry over its current difficulties. I note that the Belgian Government are to be permitted to make a temporary loan of some 125 million euro to Delta Air Transport, Sabena's subsidiary. That may be acceptable if it is temporary, but long-term subsidies such as those described by my hon. Friend are not acceptable. The Government must either eliminate the passenger departure tax or, perhaps more intelligently, allow its revenue to be applied to airlines for the provision of the security measures necessary in the current emergency situation. It is also necessary for the Government to bear part of the burden of insurance costs on a more continuing basis and that they reimburse the revenue lost during the four days when north American airports were closed.
Last, but not least, I hope that in pursuing a competitive strategy, Her Majesty's Government will encourage the confidence necessary to get passengers back into aircraft. They have done so to some degree with the Prime Minister's flight to the United States on Concorde, and the re-establishment of the Concorde service across the Atlantic by Air France; and British Airways symbolises the determination of the European airline industry to get back in the business and not to be put off. I was pleased that the Minister for Transport also went on the inaugural restored Concorde service.
In pursuing that competitive strategy, I hope that airlines will also play their part. British Airways must not only consolidate, as Mr. Eddington wishes to do, with other European carriers, such as KLM, but move towards meeting the needs of the majority of the travelling public by attracting more passengers back into aircraft. It should not devote its attention to premium traffic, which has been its strategy in recent months.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend secured this debate and I am confident that the industry will be restored to strength, but that needs the support and encouragement of Her Majesty's Government.
10.24 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on securing the debate and on the forceful and articulate way in which he made his case. To add to the ideological confusion of the argument, I follow two rather right-wing Conservatives from a right-wing party who made a case for Government intervention, but I come from a party to the left of them and will argue for a liberal, competitive market and against Government intervention. However, I acknowledge that the issue is

261WH
more subtle and the hon. Gentleman made it clear that we are discussing not just broad dogma, but specific problems concerning security costs, the insurance market and so on. Those matters must be examined individually on their merits and the outcome is not a straight yes or no.
Although I am my party's spokesman on the matter, I also represent an airport constituency. It is not as large as that of the hon. Gentleman, but several hundreds, perhaps thousands, of my constituents work at the airport and many others use it for business purposes. Its commercial and broad economic importance is understood, and many people live under the flight path, as I do, and are conscious of the environmental impact and safety implications. The debate in my constituency is better balanced than that in Spelthorne.
It is important to understand that the situation in airport-dependent constituencies is not the same as in coal mining and shipbuilding constituencies. Southwest London is part of the wider London and Surrey labour market; mining communities are not like that. A basic feature of the economy in my constituency—I am sure that this is true of Spelthorne—is a chronic labour shortage and there is a great deal of ability to absorb job losses in one area as against another for precisely that reason. The matter must be considered in its broader economic context.
The hon. Gentleman set out clearly the problems in the aviation industry: the massive loss of profitability for large carriers such as British Airways, the failure of Swissair and Sabena, and the collapse of air traffic. I want to emphasise what the hon. Gentleman said about the second round effects. It is not only the airlines that are affected, but the equipment manufacturers that supply the airlines, the aero engine industry and the tourism industry. The aviation industry, like livestock farmers, is well organised and has effective lobbies, but the tourist industry does not and its concerns are always overlooked, although it is a bigger industry. The impact of the disaster on the tourist industry has been much greater than that on the higher profile sectors.
There is a problem, but there are qualifications. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, some parts of the aviation industry are doing rather well. Ryanair, easyJet and other low-cost airlines are relatively flourishing because they seem to have a business model that is better suited to the current environment than some of the flag carriers. The proprietors of easyJet and Ryanair have been aggressive in arguing against Government intervention precisely because they believe that they have made good commercial judgments and that they should be rewarded for that in the market. They argue that British Airways, for example, made serious commercial errors in opting for concentration on the executive market. The executive market may have been rewarding some years ago, but it has collapsed in the short term. The low-cost airlines have opted for a different segment of the market and have done well from that. Partly for that reason, Luton and Stansted are surviving the present crisis much better than Heathrow. There is an issue of commercial judgment as well as the knock-on effects of an international crisis.
I must emphasise that some of the airlines that are crying out for help have been bleeding money for many years. Sabena has been losing money for 39 of the past
262WH
40 years. The crisis has triggered its insolvency and subsequent rescue, but the problem is of long standing and had to be dealt with at some time.
It is dangerous to take at face value airlines' claims that they desperately need financial help. They will make claims in their own defence and argue for help, but it is clear from a superficial examination of British Airways' accounts—I have not analysed them carefully—that it is in a strong position. It has £1 billion in cash and probably £2 billion to £2.5 billion in realisable cash from disposal of property and credit lines. It must use its commercial judgment to deal with the problem and not run to the Government; it has the asset base to cope with it. That is what a commercial enterprise should do.
I want to confront the broad policy issues. Should a flag carrier go bust? Technically, it can, but there has always been an assumption that our national flag carrier and others should never be allowed to go bankrupt. I should like to pose the question why. These are privatised companies—I am in favour of the privatisation of airlines—that have assumed commercial risks. Their shareholders have done well over the years, and if they are in financial difficulties why should they not face the risk of insolvency like any other commercial operation? In extremis that should be contemplated.
There are several reasons why it is not the Government's job to protect the national flag carrier from the verdict of the market. It is unfair to other operators in the business. Ryanair and easyJet argue that they are competing with British Midland, which is now part of Lufthansa, and British Airways. If British Airways makes commercial misjudgments and suffers bad luck, that is its problem, not the Government's.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne did not touch on hidden implicit subsidies to the industry. Airlines pay passenger tax, which they argue it is an unfair and difficult imposition, but they enjoy many implicit subsidies. Until the Government began to reform the system, the airlines paid highly subsidised landing charges because of the way in which the regulatory system works—the so-called single till principle. The Government are addressing the problem, but landing charges at Heathrow are ridiculously low. Unlike United States' airlines, British airlines pay nothing for their landing slots. The slots are grandfathered and are effectively a large gift from the taxpayer. Those are hidden subsidies built into the airline business, and if airlines cannot make money in that environment, something is seriously wrong. We must question the assumption that the flag carrier must always be baled out by the Government.
A trickier argument, which must nevertheless be confronted, concerns the case made by the hon. Gentleman that if the Americans are helping their industry, we must help ours—the UK plc argument. I understand the level playing field argument, but it is not as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman implies. If one country chooses to waste its taxpayers' money, why should other countries do the same? The previous Government chose to take a firm line on industrial subsidies, and they understood this point. It used to be argued that we should subsidise the coal industry because the Germans do, but the previous Conservative Government rightly rejected the logic of that argument. People used to argue that the Koreans subsidise their

263WH
shipbuilding industry so we must subsidise ours. Others said that the French subsidise their farmers so we must subsidise ours. That is the road to ruin, and we cannot do that on a national basis. That the Americans have done something so we should do the same is not a logical justification for industrial support.
Moreover, the American situation is different because its industry has been exposed to greater competition than the European industry. The issue of auctioning licence slots is a good example. American airlines in America pay the price of scarce landing facilities while our airlines do not. The Americans can reasonably question whether their position is exactly the same as ours.
Having made a general argument against Government intervention, I come to policy issues. There are some specific problems that must be addressed individually. I sympathise with the airlines on the compulsory four-day grounding, which resulted from a specific crisis for a specific period of time over which they had no control. The principle of compensation for that limited period, which occurred due to factors outside of the airlines' control that were induced by political circumstances, is fundamentally reasonable.
Similarly, I have some sympathy with the argument that the Government were right to help the industry with emergency insurance cover. It would have been wrong if the aviation industry had been grounded indefinitely because of a failure in a segment of the insurance market. The Government were right to act as a temporary insurer of last resort but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is important to stick to the principle that that is temporary. Companies providing commercial insurance and reinsurance are emerging, and that market should provide for the needs of the industry. Even if that is at a relatively high cost, there is no need for an indefinite subsidy.
If there are additional security costs they should be paid for by the industry, which means that passengers will ultimately pay. That principle would apply to every other industry. However, there may be specific cases concerning security at airports, the cost of which will fall on the public.
The hon. Gentleman made a point with which I sympathise about the problems of cash flow in the industry. There may be ways in which the Government can affect the timing of payments of passenger tax. That would not represent a subsidy, but it would ease the cash flow position in the industry. I would be open to the argument that that is fundamentally reasonable. However, it is wrong to argue that the Government should provide open-ended support or large-scale assistance of the type that appears to have been provided by the US Government. The European Union is right to take a hard line on state aids—it may have relented in the case of Sabena, which would be unfortunate—and Loyola de Palacio, the European Union Transport Commissioner, has said the right things and has taken the correct view on industrial assistance.
At the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman forcefully discussed whether the Government should give a signal of support for the industry by backing T5.
264WH
I do not want to prejudge the argument, which we may have as early as tomorrow, about T5, but it would be wrong to decide that large, complex argument on the basis of a current crisis of confidence in the industry. There are strong long-term arguments, which we shall rehearse in due course, for and against T5, but it is wrong to argue that because there is a temporary crisis of confidence, we should give the industry a shot in the arm by giving planning approval. When the decision comes—I suspect that it will be an approval—the important issues will concern the conditions attached to it on matters such as night flights and restrictions on flights. Treating T5 in terms of a general crisis of confidence is not the way in which to approach a complex planning issue.
The Government must not be deflected from regulatory reform. As part of their aviation review, they have rightly begun to examine the system by which the aviation industry is regulated on matters such as slot allocation and landing charges. Airlines may have to pay more for landing rights because that is what the economy and the environment require. The Government must not be deflected by demands from the aviation industry.
10.38 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-BrownI am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Cook, in this, the third debate on this subject in as many weeks in this Chamber. That reflects hon. Members' concern, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on obtaining the debate. He made a thoughtful and analytical speech on a subject of critical importance to his constituents, and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). All three hon. Members made important points.
We must not say anything in this debate that would discourage people from continuing to travel by air. Air travel is one of the safest forms of transport in the world, despite the terrible crash of flight 587 in New York on Monday, which was a hammer blow to the American people after their experiences on 11 September. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to send our deepest possible sympathy to those affected.
We must try to ensure that something positive comes out of recent events. We have already seen that the US Congress and Senate have stopped their bickering over the new security Bill, which they will pass in the shortest possible time. The Home Secretary has announced that the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill will come before the House next Monday. We shall, of course, want to scrutinise that Bill, but it contains several important measures on nuclear security, aviation security and hoax calls. I hope that the Government will enable the Bill's speedy passage through the House, and where possible we will assist in that process.
It is particularly important to stress the need to update the Aviation Security Act 1982 in respect of access to our airports. Many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne work at Heathrow. It is one of the safest airports in the world, and its workers have to be carefully screened. Given that the airline industry depends on north Atlantic trade, we

265WH
must make it clear to the American people in particular that it is safe to travel to this country. The sooner we can return to normality, the better, and as my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, anything that we can do to engender confidence must be of benefit.
It has rightly been pointed out that the aviation industry was experiencing major problems before 11 September, and some restructuring was planned in any case. Given that we want to maintain competition where possible, I ask the Government to scrutinise carefully the proposed merger of British Airways and the American airlines. That merger would account for about 50 per cent. of all passengers on north Atlantic routes and some 85 per cent. of the market as a whole. It would lead to 100 per cent dominance of 13 routes to the United States, and more than 50 per cent. dominance of five other routes. We therefore need to look at that issue critically.
The International Air Transport Association has predicted that, as a result of the events of 11 September, the industry as a whole will lose £7 billion this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne pointed out that many businesses and industries in his constituency that are connected with Heathrow airport will suffer, but so will the wider economy. It is estimated that for every job that depends directly on the aviation industry, another three depend on it indirectly. Many other types of business have already been affected. from a creamery in Cornwall, which has lost half its business because there is no winter market for its products, to laundries and a host of other businesses. The economy will undoubtedly suffer, and anything that the Government can do in the short term would be welcome.
It is worth reiterating one or two points that I have made in previous debates. It is part of the Opposition's duty to give credit to the Government when they do things right, and I duly give them credit for stepping in commendably quickly as the insurer of last resort for a period of one month. However, as I said the other day, they should give the industry a great boost by making it clear that they are prepared to extend that period.
Having increased the airport passenger duty rate on taking office, the Government now raise more than £1 billion from it. There is a clear case for recycling some of that tax to pay for specific security measures at airports. It is unreasonable to expect individual airlines to bear the cost of increased security measures, and the Government need to consider that issue carefully.
Time is getting on, so I shall turn to one or two other key points. The T5 announcement, which is becoming a farce, has been mentioned. Everybody in the industry believes that the Government have made up their mind, so why can they not reveal their decision to the House? That would give the industry a huge boost in the light of the haemorrhaging of business elsewhere. Reference has been made to increased capacity at Charles de Gaulle airport. Since the T5 application was made in 1993, two more runways have been built at Schipol, and capacity at Frankfurt is also being increased. As my hon. Friend said, at the moment we are simply exporting jobs to other European centres.
The new terminal would provide a great boost, and would not necessarily lead to increased flights. An extra terminal is necessary to handle existing passenger
266WH
numbers in greater comfort, and to provide more parking room for the larger aircraft to which the airline industry is turning. There are a host of issues that airlines must plan for, and the sooner the T5 announcement is made, the better.
I want to press the Government strongly on the question of the future of the National Air Traffic Services, which I have raised in recent debates. The NATS public-private partnership was predicated on the basis that £1 billion of private capital would be injected into the industry. On 26 October, the Minister for Transport, in a written answer to a question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), said:
"NATS are reviewing their long-term investment plan to take account of the impact of the 11 September terrorist attacks on the aviation industry. They are due to report on the new Business Plan, which includes the long-term investment plan, in November 2001."—[Official Report, 26 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 428W.]
Given that the plan and the entire future of air traffic control centres at Prestwick and in the south are predicated on the basis of private investment, the Government must make a clear statement on how matters will proceed. We cannot operate in a vacuum, and if the Minister cannot provide that information today, I should be grateful if he would write to me and make it available in the Library.
As time is short, and so that the Minister can respond to the many issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, I am prepared to curtail my speech. I conclude by pointing out that we need some positive proposals from the Minister today on how to build confidence in the industry. Perhaps the most important issues are competition and state aid. Some $5 billion has been made available immediately to American airlines, and a further $10 billion may be in the pipeline. I have already asked, in an intervention on my hon. Friend, about the precise nature of the Government's negotiations with European Union competition authorities. One thing is sure: if European flag carriers are subsidised, our airlines will face unfair competition. I am not necessarily saying that our own flag carriers should be subsidised, but it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the competition that they face from Europe and from across the Atlantic is fair. Only the Government can do that.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on securing this debate, and on the measured and largely consensual way in which he conducted it. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said that he cut short his speech, but he took longer than the allotted 10 minutes. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is smiling, but he took even longer. It seems that those who ask the questions in debates such as this have considerably more time than those who must reply to them, which I shall now attempt to do.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne rightly pointed out that the airline industry is of fundamental importance to our economy, and the Government fully recognise that fact. I agree entirely that the recent events that we are debating have in some cases resulted in personal family

267WH
tragedies. I also want to reinforce the view that air travel is safe. During all our debates, we should bear in mind that the number of air travel-related casualties, injuries and accidents is very low compared with other forms of transport. I realise how important those issues are to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and to those of other hon. Members, and we are mindful of the jobs and associated industries involved.
I noticed that two Conservative Members talked, with some affection, of Government involvement in private industry, resonating yesterday's Railtrack debate. We are interested to see a gradual movement in policy by those hon. Gentlemen.
I shall deal with specific matters because there is little time to talk in generalities. First, the Government recognise the importance of the T5 announcement. Alas, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a decision today—he will have to contain his disappointment for a while longer, but he may not have to wait long. I noted his comments about the planning system and the time that it has taken to be resolved. I am sure that he welcomes the Government's new approach to planning.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the issue of aid from the United States Government to the airline industry across the Atlantic. We agree on the need to prevent competitive distortion with the United States and I assure him that we are carefully watching that. The European Commission is considering drawing up a code of conduct with the US Government to prevent anticompetitive behaviour, and we are mindful of the importance of that.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the number of jobs concerned with Boeing. I thought that I had a figure for the amount of exports from this country to Boeing but it is not precise so I shall only say that it is substantial. I met Boeing on that subject last week. He is right to say that a substantial number of jobs rely on Boeing. In response to his question on indemnities to airports for war risk, the Government have given indemnity to them and other service providers, including NATS. I hope that that satisfies him.
I know that the European Union is a somewhat sensitive point for Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the solutions to the problems of the airline industry in the United Kingdom must be found in this country, but we must also find agreement in the European Union. We cannot tackle such matters alone. If we did, we might find even the 15 countries in the European Union having to compete against one another, which would offer no benefit or advantage. I take his point on not bailing out failing airlines, but sometimes our national interests are closely interwoven with those of the European Union.
National Air Traffic Services has been clearly affected by what has unfolded during the past two months because its revenue comes from airline movements, which have been substantially depleted. It now faces an extraordinary and totally unexpected situation. It asked us for a pause in the building of the new centre at Prestwick, and we sanctioned that, but we remain totally committed to the two-centre strategy. We have received no financial request from it, but are keeping the situation under close review.
268WH
I am aware of the concern about the situation in the airline industry. The hon. Gentleman referred to last week's debate, which was fortunately extended owing to House business. A number of hon. Members whose constituencies surround the Heathrow area spoke with passion then about the issues raised today. I emphasise that the Government recognise the great importance of the aviation industry to the United Kingdom, and are paying close attention to its problems.
As pointed out—I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Cotswold—we reacted quickly to the events of 11 September to counteract the failure in the aviation insurance market and enhance security measures at all United Kingdom airports. We are actively considering payment of emergency aid to airlines for the four days that United States' airspace was closed, but any decision will be in accordance with European Commission guidelines.
In addition to those measures, we are doing what we can to restore confidence in air travel. Much of the difficulty lies with that intangible thing called confidence. The airlines need not only state aid, which may help them for a while, but a return of their customer base and confidence. A fortnight ago, I made a trip to some British regional airports to encourage confidence in air travel and boost morale. Heathrow is holding up well at present, but it is important that all concerned should be in a position to react quickly to a deterioration in the situation. The job transition service is engaging with employers to ensure that those employees adversely affected by recent events have access to the fullest advice. I think that that was discussed with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport when he visited recently.
Despite the Government's long-standing policy not to intervene in the aviation market, the exceptional circumstances warrant Government action. As I have already said, we took immediate steps to counteract the failure in the insurance market: within a few days, and before the imminent withdrawal of cover grounded the entire UK fleet, we made the necessary third party war risks cover available to our airlines and related industry. We were so quick off the mark, and our remedy so effective, that our lead has been widely followed throughout the world. Initially, the cover was for one month, but it has recently been extended until 23 November and we are examining that almost on a daily basis.
Despite a few deplorable lapses that have been reported recently, pre-existing standards of security in the United Kingdom are among the highest in the world. None the less, we have enhanced security measures at all UK airports, and for airlines leaving this country. We are also carrying out a fundamental review of aviation security to make air travel as safe from terrorist attacks as we can, while balancing that with freedom to travel. I am sure that the hon. Members will welcome the fact that BAA estimates that it will need something like 150 extra security staff at Heathrow—it expects a good response to job adverts in the local press.
With one eye on United States Government support for its airline industry, some are calling for more generous aid for United Kingdom airlines. I stress that that is a matter for the European Community, which has exclusive competence for monitoring state aid that could distort or threaten competition in so far as it

269WH
affects trade between member states. The European Commission acted quickly to address the repercussions of the terrorist attacks for the air transport industry and issued a communication reiterating that member states must not depart from Community rules on state aid and set out how the Commission will interpret the rules in the current situation. We will monitor how that is done with great care. The extra costs of security, together with the losses directly attributable to the closure of US airspace and the provisions of insurance cover by Governments are identified as areas where state aid would be justifiable. The Government are considering whether further aid to UK airlines should be made available, taking relevant guidelines into account.
This debate has been useful and many matters have been aired again. I have had little time to cover the enormous number of points raised by hon. Members, but they are welcome to drop me a line about anything that I have not covered, and I will endeavour to send them a full, written response.

Hepatitis C
11 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I am pleased to have secured this important debate, in which I wish to draw the attention of Parliament and the people to hepatitis C, a serious condition that affects the health of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and is likely to become at least as serious as the onset of HIV/AIDS a few years ago. The Government do not appear to regard the situation as that serious; this is an opportunity for the Minister to clarify their position.
It was not deliberately planned, but yesterday the Haemophilia Society and the all-party group on haemophilia held a reception in the House, and today they are holding a photo call on College green to mark their "carpet of lilies" campaign. That is why some of us are wearing lilies on our lapels to represent the fact that more than 1,000 haemophiliacs have died as a result of contracting the HIV and/or hepatitis C viruses, through receiving contaminated blood during national health service blood transfusions. I shall not say much about that issue, but I am sure that other hon. Members will cover it adequately.
The hepatitis C virus, HCV, was first identified as recently as 1989. It infects the liver but it can also cause damage to kidneys and white blood cells. HCV is an enveloped ribonucleic acid of the flaviviride family, which is believed to have a narrow host range. It is incredibly resilient, being capable of surviving in dried blood for long periods. The incubation period for the virus is commonly six to nine weeks, although it is frequently longer. It can lie in the body without causing obvious disease for a lifetime, and infected people can put others at risk without realising the dangers. HCV has a high mutation rate and it is thought that six common strains exist, each with many sub-strains. It is possible for a person to be infected by more than one strain at the same time. The strains have the ability to mutate spontaneously, which is partly why it has not been possible to develop vaccines to combat the virus.
The World Health Organisation estimates that about 170 million people worldwide are infected with HCV. However, the epidemic is fairly new to the United Kingdom. It probably began in the late 1960s, but a large cohort of people is believed to have become infected in the early and late 1980s before needle exchange schemes and other interventions to reduce transmission of the virus became widely available. The official figure for the number of infected people in the UK was recently given in a parliamentary answer in the other place, which stated that there were 300,000 people with chronic carriage of the virus. However, specialists working in the field believe that the true figure may be much higher—possibly 500,000. That figure was quoted in an article in The Independent in July 2000. In the same article, the former Surgeon-General of the United States, Everett Koop, said:
"We stand on the precipice of a great threat to our public health …It affects people in all walks of life, in all states, in every country …and, unless we do something soon, it will kill more people than AIDS."
HCV is a growing concern, as its transmission through contaminated blood is incredibly common. Misconceptions, rumours and misinformation are the greatest allies of HCV infection because, like the AIDS virus, it carries a stigma.

271WH
In 1999, HCV killed 743 people in England. The provisional figure for 2000 is 1,042, but most deaths from HCV-related complications are not recorded with HCV as the cause, so the true figure for deaths caused directly or indirectly by the virus must be much higher.
In 15 per cent. of cases HCV disappears spontaneously, but the other 85 per cent. of those infected will proceed to develop a long-term chronic illness. HCV is the biggest cause of chronic liver disease in the western world and is known to exacerbate the severity of underlying liver disease when it co-exists with other hepatic conditions. Some 30 per cent. of victims will contract cirrhosis of the liver over a 30-year period, and of those some 5 per cent. every year will develop liver cancer and 2 per cent. will suffer liver failure. Even among those less severely affected the symptoms, which include fatigue, depression and lethargy, can be debilitating and all lead to a poor quality of life.
As a result of HCV infection, over the next 10 years 30,000 to 60,000 people in the UK are expected to die from cirrhosis of the liver and 15,000 to 30,000 are expected to die from primary liver cancer. Heavy drinkers, especially alcoholics, who are unaware of their HCV infection are putting themselves at particularly great risk.
HCV is incredibly difficult to treat owing to its high mutation rates. Indeed, viral infections in general are notoriously difficult to treat with known drugs. The most successful treatment that is currently available, which is approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, is a combination therapy of ribavirin and alpha interferon. However, it is extremely expensive—it costs about £8,000 per patient per annum.
Until now a few, but not all, health authorities have commissioned treatment from their central budgets. Knowledge of the advent of primary care trusts in April 2002 has made specialists working in the field fearful that far fewer patients than at present will receive the combination therapy. I put it to the Minister that it might be preferable to commission expensive treatment of that sort from a centralised regional budget—after all, liver transplants are funded in that way—and I look forward to his response.
Significantly, the combination therapy, which is successful in curing approximately 40 per cent. of those infected, is cost-effective, according to consultants. Moreover, it reduces the eventual need for long-term care and the demand for liver transplants. Apart from the fact that transplant operations cost about £50,000 each, the recent organ retention scandals have severely reduced the supply of livers for such operations.
The most common cause of HCV transmission is injecting drug use—specifically, the sharing of injecting paraphernalia. It is estimated that, on average, 30 to 40 per cent. of current and former injecting drug users may have the virus, and the figure can be as high as 60 per cent. for long-term injectors. More males than females are infected because the former are more likely to inject drugs. Four out of five deaths from HCV infection may be categorised as drug-related.
It is believed that one in 11 injecting drug users who began injecting in the past three years have the hepatitis C infection. Occasional users are more likely to share
272WH
equipment. Their drug use is often unplanned and their first experiences of injecting are nearly always with borrowed equipment. HCV can be transmitted by using any injecting equipment that has been in contact with an infected person's blood. The lending and borrowing of injecting paraphernalia is common. In 1999, direct sharing of needles and syringes was reported by 32 per cent. of drug users who had injected in the previous month.
Dangerous sharing practices include not only syringes, but spoons and other containers used for mixing drugs, water, swabs, filters, tourniquets and utensils such as lighters and knives. There is also a growing concern that sharing straws to snort cocaine may be a route of infection through weakened nasal membranes.
Although there is strong evidence that needle exchange facilities significantly reduce the incidence of HCV, no formal assessment of the availability of such schemes throughout the UK has ever been carried out. There is a wide disparity in the distribution and quality of such services.
Some 27 million syringes are distributed every year for harm reduction. Assuming that there are 100,000 regular injectors, which is probably an underestimate, that provision represents less than one clean syringe a day for each injecting drug user. No wonder injectors are forced to share syringes.
NICE and the British Society of Gastroenterology have advised treatment providers against generally giving treatment to current drug injectors. That advice is apparently based on problems of compliance and re-infection. An article in the 19 July 2001 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine examined the rationale for excluding drug users with chronic HCV from treatment and rejected the NICE advice. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will re-examine the advice.
I also draw the Minister's attention to an article that appeared recently in the 2001, volume 34, issue 1 edition of "Hepatology", beginning on page 188. It shows that prejudicial statements about poor compliance are inaccurate and that injecting drug users with chronic HCV can be treated successfully with combination therapy.
It is thought that the risk of newly acquired HCV is highest among prisoners, and that transmission in prisons occurs through not only the re-use of needles but the sharing of other items, and through piercing and tattooing. The Prison Service already has a strategy for preventing the spread of communicable diseases in prisons, involving training, education, prevention, risk reduction and harm minimisation. It is necessary for that best practice to be spread nationally throughout the community, which calls for the development of a national strategy.
My final remarks are about such a strategy. In the 1980s, the Department of Health responded to the growing threat of the HIV virus with national advertising campaigns informing the general public. They were coupled with more detailed information made available to groups at the highest risk. There is a growing concern among specialists working on HCV that if some form of information is not soon made available, it will become more widespread than HIV has ever been. Although programmes such as needle

273WH
exchange schemes have been implemented in most parts of the country, they are patchy and the current situation is inadequate. Unfortunately, many who use needle exchanges still regularly share equipment.
Although many injecting drug users are aware of HCV, not all are familiar with the ways in which it can be contracted. A national strategy to inform and educate the public would reduce the number of people contracting it and that would reduce the money that the NHS spends on treatment. Without adequate information, HCV prevalence is likely to rise further. It is vital that those at risk are informed and helped to avoid contracting the disease. The Prison Service already has a system of education and risk reduction, but why is the giving of information confined to prison inmates? Could the DOH modify the information programme used in the Prison Service and use it to spread awareness throughout high-risk groups of the general public?
It cannot be denied that the strategy against HIV and AIDS significantly reduced the numbers becoming infected. It is hoped that a similar national strategy against HCV, if and when it is launched, will reduce the incidence of that infection in the same way. I look forward to hearing the views of my parliamentary colleagues and the Minister's response.
11.14 am
Dr. Ian GibsonI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on raising an issue that is a medical time-bomb waiting to explode, and taking on a subject that has still to penetrate the public consciousness. I shall try to cover in more detail some of the points that he raised.
I am aware of the situation because of my contact with the Bure drugs centre in Norwich, Norfolk, which has helpfully provided local information. In a quiet city, which, the newspapers tell us, is a city of the future, the problem is just as deep-seated as anywhere else in the country. The problem is worldwide and global, but it is also found in our cities—quiet, nice and productive of a good quality of life though they are—and throughout the country. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising the issue.
The help that I received from the Bure centre came via Paul Brierley, who, as the harm minimisation nurse in the community drug team there, is at the coal face of the problems. His role at the centre is to operate a confidential advice and testing service for bloodborne viruses, including hepatitis C, hepatitis B and HIV. He participates in the surveys of the Public Health Laboratory Service, and in a 2000 survey testing for hepatitis C antibodies in individuals, from a sample base of 211 people in Norwich and Norfolk, 42 per cent. responded positively. The sample base was representative of Norwich and the old East Norfolk health authority.
There is no accurate figure for the number of individuals that that percentage would translate into in Norfolk because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, many injectors are invisible to that, or any other, form of survey. We are aware that there is in Norfolk a significant number of dependent opiate injectors who never access any form of treatment, as well as a probably larger group of non-dependent opiate and stimulant
274WH
injectors, and several who may have injected a few times, or a long time ago. The Bure centre currently has 700 open cases and in excess of 3,000 closed cases. The vast majority of them are at some risk of infection. The medics who operate at the Bure centre think it reasonable to conclude that the numbers infected in Norfolk are in the thousands, many of them unaware of their status, or even of the existence of the virus.
On testing, there is no routine antenatal hepatitis C screening, although it is actively encouraged when a pregnant woman reports past or current intravenous drug usage. It is often available on the request of general practitioners, and some of them encourage it. It is unlikely, however, to include significant counselling before or after the test, or to alter a client's risk behaviour. All local prisons offer some access to counselling and testing, and vaccination for, at least, hepatitis B.
On prevention, there is evidence, courtesy of the local Public Health Laboratory Service, that rates of new infection have slowed during the past few years. That may reflect a growing awareness of risk. The Bure centre is often approached by statutory and non-statutory agencies seeking training for staff and service users. That reflects the level of local concern and the increasing number of people considering the risk because of their occupation or lifestyle.
All work on hepatitis C in Norfolk is conducted within existing budgets. That point is strongly made and amplified by all those who carry out front-line work.
On treatment, I am indebted to my ex-colleague Dr. Hugh Kennedy for providing information about the gastroenterology unit at Norfolk and Norwich hospital and the problems in the hospital environment. NICE guidelines recommend funding for treatment, but whether it is provided seems to vary across the country, as is the case with funding for many drugs. I shall say a little more about the NICE recommendations in a minute.
The needle and syringe exchange scheme provides comprehensive coverage of Norfolk, on a rather nine-to-five basis. With some forethought it is possible to have a clean needle and syringe for every injection, but whether that happens is another matter. In the prison in Norwich, a course of training has been run for 50 staff, including a morning on viral infection. It highlighted clients' remarks on the availability of drugs in prisons and on the lack of injecting equipment. Sharing such equipment is a widespread practice in prisons, and must play a significant part in spreading hepatitis C. The prison gives inmates access to sterilising tablets, ostensibly for disinfecting cutlery, but they have not been demonstrated to inactivate the virus, even when soaked for the recommended 30 minutes—probably considerably longer than the average user is likely to wait. If virus transmission in prisons is not addressed, the overall infection rate is expected to remain high.
There are other routes of infection, although they are perhaps not as significant. Contact with contaminated blood and blood products, and non-hygienic tattooing or body piercing are among the myriad of ways in which bloodborne viruses can infect the population. They are detected only when patients present in general practice with obvious and often advanced liver disease.

275WH
The level of knowledge gained over the years by the Bure clinic means that most current intravenous opiate-dependent users have some idea of the risk of infection with the virus, although local myth and misinformation plays a part. The clinic also fosters knowledge among those working with or caring for intravenous drug users, although the demand for information is in danger of outstripping the supply of people to provide that information.
Confidential advice and testing is also available at the Bure centre, as advised by the young person's capacity to give informal consent—the so-called Gillick competency. Early reports that HCV infections frequently occur within the first year of injecting have been borne out only partly. Awareness of risk ordinarily postdates the commencement of injecting behaviour.
As my hon. Friend said, the true prevalence of hepatitis C in the United Kingdom is unknown and there is no accurate information about the infected population. Basic information relating to the age of those infected, the duration of the infection, the risk factors for infection and the distribution of infection in the different regions of the UK is not available. It is therefore impossible to determine what services are required, where they should be established and which client groups should be targeted. Appropriate epidemiological studies are urgently required to determine how best to tackle the hepatitis C problem.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence reviewed drug therapy for hepatitis C in the final quarter of 2000. As my hon. Friend said, it concluded that therapy with current drugs such as interferon and ribavirin cures up to 40 per cent. of infected individuals and that, although it is expensive, it is cost-effective and should be provided. At present, therapy for the virus is funded by local health authorities. I have already pointed out that a postcode lottery operates, and I hope that the Government will address that with all the other drug problems, including cancer.
Much concern has been expressed about funding, and many centres have featured in campaigns to try to obtain sufficient money to provide effective drug treatments. It is clear that the current system for implementing the NICE guidelines for hepatitis C is unsatisfactory, and that central, ring-fenced funding will be required to allow all patients to receive appropriate therapy. That is the only conclusion that one can draw from the available information.
A targeted testing and information campaign is needed. The Department's current policy is to test only those patients who ask to be tested for hepatitis C, but hepatitis C can, for many years, be a silent disease, and probably about 500,000 people in the UK have been infected. However, they are unaware that they are at risk, and are thus unlikely to ask to be tested. If they were aware of the diagnosis, many people could limit the progression of their disease—for example, simply by stopping drinking alcohol. Others could be prevented from developing serious disease by appropriate treatment.
A public information campaign could be undertaken at a cost equal to that of treating three or four people with interferon or ribavirin. Symptomatic illness and
276WH
liver failure could be prevented in many people. Indeed, the correlation between hepatitis C and liver cancer is well proven. Every undergraduate medical student knows that, and it is one of the few cases where a virus is involved in the development of a cancer. Targeted testing and a public information campaign are essential.
There is evidence that some groups are disadvantaged. However, the subject has not been studied in detail, and only anecdotal evidence is available. It is common in patients of non-European descent, in those who misuse drugs and among prisoners. Those vulnerable groups have poor access to healthcare, and there are no plans to facilitate treatment for them. Unless services are developed to address their healthcare needs, a substantial reservoir of untreated hepatitis C will persist, which will place an increasing demand on healthcare services and cause new infections.
As my hon. Friend said, the costs of treating individuals with chronic hepatitis C are high, and it is disappointing to note that no cohesive policy is in place to prevent transmission. There is clear evidence that effective health promotion aimed at reducing needle sharing among those who inject drugs reduces the risk of infection with HCV.
The Medical Research Council facilitates research funding for medically related problems, but its strategies document does not mention hepatitis C. Priority is given to research into spongiform encephalopathies, such as BSE. and the epidemiology of HIV. Given the size of the current hepatitis C epidemic, those research priorities seem completely out of balance.
Mention has been made of compensation for haemophiliacs who have contracted HIV. It is perverse that many patients with haemophilia who are now dying as a result of infection with hepatitis C should be denied similar compensation. I suggest a possible solution. Current systems for dealing with the problems are clearly failing. The epidemic is not being properly monitored, patients are being denied the information needed to reduce the risk of infection and those who are infected are being denied therapy.
To resolve those problems, central funding is required to provide a full range of services for people who have chronic hepatitis C or who are at risk of being infected with it. Improving services for such patients will require the co-ordinated efforts of a large group of different healthcare groups. Regional anti-viral centres that are responsible for preventing, managing and monitoring the epidemic in their area need to be set up with central funding. Without some form of centralised funding, ad hoc arrangements will persist and the epidemic will continue to absorb precious healthcare resources for many years to come. We can take action now to forestall the consequences of the disease by reducing transmission, preventing deterioration and eliminating the virus from those who are currently infected.
11.26 am
Brian CotterI shall raise the subject of those haemophiliacs who contracted hepatitis C as a result of blood transfusion and who suffer in many ways as a result. For example, they are unable to obtain life insurance, and many have had to give up their jobs. Such people require proper financial help. It is not simply a moral obligation; we have a financial obligation to

277WH
provide for them and their families, so that they can be financially secure and enjoy as full a life as possible. In that connection, I must point out that help has been provided for HIV sufferers. Hepatitis C is just as devastating a disease and it involves just as much loss and hardship. Why should the two be treated differently?
A step has been made in the right direction. In March, in a landmark High Court case, Mr. Justice Burton found that the national health service had a legal duty to supply clean blood for transfusion. Significant compensation was awarded to 114 non-haemophiliacs who had suffered blood transfusions and who had been infected as a result. That case was brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, but those provisions apply only to cases that arose after the Act came into force. However, if the principle of compensation was accepted in that case, it is surely grossly unfair to deny the same rights to haemophilia sufferers who have hepatitis C.
The Government have said that they are considering the implications of that verdict, but it seems that they will not provide further compensation. However, the Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament recently recommended that financial assistance be given to haemophilia sufferers infected with hepatitis C as a result of having been given contaminated blood. If the Scottish Executive can do it, I hope that the Government will move in the same direction.
I asked the Minister a question on that subject on Monday 12 November. His response was that he would let me have a reply as soon as possible. I hope that the reason for the delay is that the Government are considering what to do. The Scottish Executive does not provide the only example. Many other countries, such as Ireland, have accepted responsibility and provide compensation for haemophiliacs.
Arguments have been advanced against compensation or financial help; there is concern that that would open the floodgates in respect of other issues. However, I do not accept that argument. The Government have said that benefit payments are the way to help. That is not enough. I hope that they will change their mind.
The matter was raised many years ago. When he was Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security in 1974, David Owen—now Lord Owen—asked departmental officials to put money aside for that very purpose. It has been a tremendous shock to him and to others that that money was not, seemingly, put aside. Certainly it was not used, yet it was already an issue all those years ago.
The present and previous Labour Governments have not uniformly insisted on proof of medical negligence before compensating national health service patients. The Callaghan Government increased payments under the vaccine damage payment scheme, and payments have been increased by the present Labour Government under the Macfarlane trust fund.
Compensation is provided in other areas, such as for criminal injuries, but that is not dependent on the Government's being seen to be at fault. Financial assistance is required, and haemophilia victims want and deserve an inquiry into how their plight has been allowed to happen. There has been an internal inquiry,
278WH
but it was not considered that it got to the root of the matter. Supporters have pointed out that haemophilia victims who received transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s did not have any of the risks that we now know exist explained to them, although scientific knowledge available to Whitehall at that time suggested that hepatitis C could be transmitted through blood. In addition, money has never been forthcoming, despite the fact that a previous Minister with responsibility for health—Lord Owen—considered the issue important enough to say that it was required.
A debate was initiated by Lord Morris in the other place. He made it clear that almost everyone with haemophilia who is now over the age of 15 was infected with HIV and HCV by unclean blood. Of some 6,000 haemophiliacs, about 1,000 have already died of one or both of those diseases. If there have been inquiries about the Marchioness and about Paddington, surely there can be one into this disaster.
I hope that this is a constructive contribution.
Dr. Iddon: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Scottish Parliament. Is he aware that the Haemophilia Society petitioned it? Although most of the reasons for its petitioning were rejected, the Scottish Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee reached the following conclusion:
"financial and other practical assistance, awarded on a no-fault basis, is the clearest solution to the issues raised in these petitions."
Brian Cotter: I very much appreciate that contribution, which helps to advance the case that I have been trying to make. I hope that we are not putting up the ramparts on the issue, and that the Government are considering it and will shortly come forward with what is needed: an inquiry and financial support to put right this clear injustice.
11.35 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It concerns a serious public health issue, on which discussion is long overdue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has spelled out questions about the levels of infection, the consequences for the people who are infected, the costs of treatment and the need for a national strategy to deal with hepatitis C. Work is being done on that, but rather belatedly.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) said about haemophilia. There is a need for compensation. We should recognise that need and act on it. We should also conduct an inquiry into what has gone on, so that we can be clear in our mind about the history, the causes and the problems. Without one, we can never be absolutely sure that we have dealt with all the problems, however much we might feel that we have.
The major route of transmission for hepatitis C has been injecting drugs. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why the issue has not received the attention that it should have received. Injecting drug users are not popular causes. It is not difficult to see a connection between the fact that that is the major route of transmission and the lack of attention that has been given to the subject, the feeling being perhaps that the

279WH
victims of hepatitis C have brought it on themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, the disease is transmitted not just through the sharing of syringes, but via other drug-injecting paraphernalia and possibly through household contacts such as shared razors.
There is no doubt that we are behind other countries when it comes to a national strategy to cope with hepatitis C. Most other European countries have one. The Australians have had one for several years and are on their second or third revision of it. If we do not have a national strategy, we shall not know the true prevalence of the disease, monitor the epidemic or be able to establish the most effective ways to deal with it. Nor shall we be able to ensure that all those who need treatment get it—the problem of prescription by postcode has been mentioned. There are questions about the accuracy of the data. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said in one of its reports:
"It is regrettable that the country is encountering an immensely threatening public health problem without the data with which to monitor population trends and the effectiveness of policies."
That is the situation.
I am also concerned about treatment. What will happen when we move to commissioning by primary care trusts? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East described clearly his views on the need for centralised funding. Two or three weeks ago, I was in this Chamber for a debate on HIV funding, and the same questions arose about what would happen when commissioning took place under primary care trusts.
Dr. Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that those questions apply to syringe exchange schemes, as well as to combination therapy? Such schemes would be low on the agenda of most primary care trusts.
Mr. Gerrard: I agree. There is a difference between what is happening in relation to hepatitis C and HIV. On HIV, many health authorities have a history of specialised commissioning and have people with expertise. I am worried about what will happen to that expertise when commissioning takes place at primary care trust level. On hepatitis C, we have not had specialised commissioning and no expertise has been developed in most health authorities.
Dr. Gibson: In Norfolk, money that was requested from the local health authority for a hepatitis C nurse was put towards a bowel cancer nurse. Priorities such as hepatitis C nurses are stuck low on the agenda time and again, which is why we need the money to be put towards what the Government mean it to be put towards and not diverted to other causes. Sometimes the money is even spent on car parks instead of staff to help the likes of drug abuse units.
Mr. GerrardMy hon. Friend's example illustrates the problems, which I fear will worsen when the change is made and specialised commissioning takes place at primary care trust level. What happens to public health-related work generally, as a result of the change to primary care trust commissioning, is a serious issue. In
280WH
many health authorities, only a few people have any expertise in public health. We must ensure that they continue their work. In my area, workers in the health authorities who are unsure about their future, especially those who work on narrow and specialised subjects, are disappearing as the change to primary care trusts occurs. They are taking the opportunity to find jobs elsewhere due to their uncertainty.
We certainly should consider public information campaigns. I have no doubt that such a campaign on hepatitis C could be cost-effective. The costs of treatment are so large that the prevention of even a small number of infections represents a significant saving. We must improve accessibility to treatment—a subject that has been covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East and for Norwich, North. Access to the treatment that one should receive for a hepatitis C infection must not continue to depend on where one lives. We need national guidelines for treatment and clear agreement on who should receive therapies.
We also need to tackle the subject of testing facilities. One can be tested at a drugs service or a genito-urinary medicine clinic, but many people do not like going to such places, so we must think about where testing should be provided and how people should be directed to it.
The subject is a major one in public health terms. The figures—-the number of infections, the likely number of deaths—speak for themselves about what will happen if we do not get to grips with the problem. It has been ignored for far too long. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East for securing the debate. I hope that we shall hear proposals for action from the Government to start to tackle this public health issue.
11.45 am
Sandra GidleyI congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate. He has been trying to do so for a considerable time; his e-mails requesting me to try to secure a debate on this important subject might now stop. I pay tribute to his work with the Haemophilia Society. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) has spoken about haemophilia.
We should take note of the interesting comments made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), as he has done plenty of work on HIV. He must have learned lessons from the way in which HIV has been tackled, and must have used that knowledge to highlight many of the problems of hepatitis C.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) stole my opening line. I was going to start by saying that hepatitis C was a medical time-bomb, so I agreed when he said something similar.
I should like to query the figures. We do not know the number of people infected with the disease. The Department of Health estimates that 300,000 people in the United Kingdom have a chronic infection, but its figures are flawed because they are based solely on mathematical projections. Those projections are based on known prevalence rates in antenatal clinics, and that information is patchy at best. The rate varies from 0.8 per cent. to 0.2 per cent., and is regarded as 0.5 per cent. of the population overall.

281WH
Hepatologists are concerned that that figure is falsely low. As we heard, 80 per cent. of hepatitis C transmission is associated with injecting drug use, but figures from antenatal clinics suggest that female drug users have reduced fertility. Comparison of drug users with non-drug users among females of childbearing age shows that drug users have half the normal fertility rate. That creates a significant flaw in the mathematics. Much evidence shows that fewer women inject drugs and consequently share equipment than men, so it is apparent that a sample of antenatal clinic attendees has a lower prevalence of hepatitis C than the general population.
A general population survey is urgently needed, to give us a clear idea of the scale of the problem and enable us to plan accordingly. A survey in the United States of America showed that the rate there was not 0.5 per cent., but 1.8 per cent. If the same rate occurred in the UK—there is doubt that it would— more than 1 million people would be infected, as opposed to 500,000. We urgently need information. The financial impact of the problem would differ considerably depending on whether 300,000, 500,000 or 1 million people were affected. Will the Minister, instead of relying on a poor estimate, make a commitment to fund a study so that a clear picture of prevalence is known?
A big problem of hepatitis C is that most people do not know that they have been infected until many years later—possibly, 20 or 30 years. Some people go to the doctor and their condition is diagnosed when the next step of their liver failure could be liver cancer.
Testing is not widely available in the UK. It has been said that people can go to genito-urinary medicine clinics, but they cannot always do so. Many such clinics do not regard hepatitis C as a sexually transmitted disease, so it does not fall within their remit. People have problems accessing such services. Although 80 per cent. of transmission is through injecting drug use, a significant proportion—about 15 per cent.—of those infected have probably acquired the infection via sexual intercourse, and they still cannot get tested. Many drug services are not allowed or cannot afford to provide testing, and accessibility varies widely around the country. The postcode element of testing has been mentioned many times.
Figures from the Public Health Laboratory Service show that in 1999, 13,272 cases were diagnosed. That shows that at least 95 per cent. of the people in this country who already carry the hepatitis C virus are unaware that they have the disease and that they are sitting on a medical time-bomb. I want to reaffirm that a widely publicised campaign is needed to make people aware of the issue. If they find that they are potentially at risk, they can be tested. We also need to make testing easier and more available, so that appropriate early treatment can be given. Will the Government commit to providing such testing? People may take the view that if they do not know that they are ill, they have no reason to worry, but I shall explain later why it is important to know.
Many people who suddenly find that they are living with the hepatitis C virus are from a generation who probably dabbled briefly with injecting drugs in their teenage years. Some 20 or 30 years ago, the need for clean needles and the dangers of sharing were still not widely known or acknowledged. If the problem was
282WH
known, it was not being tackled. Injecting drug use was rare before the late 1960s but has increased steadily ever since. That is why the full effects of the epidemic have yet to hit us. Most people with hepatitis C have probably forgotten that they ever took drugs.
Needle exchange schemes have probably helped to reduce the incidence of infection, which probably accounts for the fact that the UK incidence will be lower than that of the United States. Such schemes are designed to limit the spread of HIV. However, HIV prevention advice is confined to not sharing needles and syringes. For HIV that is good enough, but for HCV it is not because, as has been outlined, there is much evidence to show that the sharing of other drug paraphernalia such as spoons and filters may ease transmission. It is thought that although people do not share syringes they do re-use their own syringe, and when they do so the contaminated blood is transferred to the paraphernalia, which may be used by someone else.
In Holland, needle exchange kits include single-use filters such as steri-cups. That would be a good move in the UK if we had the funding. However, it is currently illegal to supply such paraphernalia. Will the Minister consult the Home Secretary and push for the repeal of section 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? That would go a long way to help with HCV strategy. That simple act would save lives, as studies have shown that sharing spoons and filters causes a fourfold increase in the risk of infection.
Dr. Iddon: Does not section 9 of that Act also preclude the provision of syringes with sterilising liquids of any kind, and would it not be sensible to provide the two things together in one pack?
Sandra Gridley: The hon. Gentleman is right. Also, sterilising liquids are currently prescription-only medicines, which is another problem that needs to be solved urgently.
To return to the disease itself, 85 per cent. of those infected develop chronic disease. If they remain untreated, 30 per cent. will die from the disease in 30 years. During the chronic phase, many people suffer from depression and fatigue. That has a significant impact on what society has to pay out—people may be unable to work, increasing the strain on the benefits system. There is a stage when drug treatment is appropriate. If people are tested at the right time, drug treatment can be given. As has been pointed out, the next step is a liver transplant. The difference in costs is clear. The drug costs vary from £12,000 to £15,000 a year, but a liver transplant costs roughly £36,000, so there are cost savings to be made by identifying the problem early.
I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. He has pointed out that the system discriminates against infected current drug users, who are simply denied treatment. There is now evidence that the exclusion of injecting drug users from treatment is ill-founded. There is no evidence that they go on to re-infect if a proper education programme is supplied.
As usual, Britain appears to be lagging behind the rest of the world. In the USA, concerted efforts are being made to highlight the problem. Information campaigns

283WH
are being targeted at the casual drug users of the 1960s, so that those people can be tested and treated at the optimum stage. There are numerous websites and charities highlighting the issue, and activities include awareness rallies and something called a hepfest—I hate to think what that was, but it received a lot of publicity. A large quantity of public awareness material and plenty of medical information is being distributed, because parts of the medical profession are still not up to speed with the full implications of hepatitis C.
Prisons were mentioned. More prisoners are injecting drug users than are not. Will the Minister consult with the Home Secretary so that we have a proper trial of needle exchange facilities? Some things are being done on an ad hoc basis, but provision is patchy around the country. Pilots have been tried in Switzerland, Germany and Spain and many of the fears, such as the fear that inmates would tackle prison officers with syringes, have proved to be unfounded, provided an education programme is in place.
The problem is real and it is no good to adopt an ostrich-like stance—we must face reality. Will the Minister establish the true prevalence of HCV, monitor the epidemic and plan for the future, establish ways of preventing further infections—such as the repeal of the drug paraphernalia laws—and ensure timely, appropriate treatment for all? Like many hon. Members in the Chamber today, I am suggesting a national strategy.
11.58 am
Mr. Simon BurnsI add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this debate and on choosing this important subject. Almost every hon. Member who has taken part has described the problems facing us with regard to hepatitis C as a time-bomb ticking away. That is the most accurate description, given that hundreds of thousands of people in the country may carry the disease without even knowing it. No one quite knows how many people in the community are carrying the disease undiagnosed. It is clear from a number of contributions made this morning that there have been guesstimates and estimates, but the bottom line is that we do not know the exact or even the semi-precise figures on the extent of the problem, particularly as the incubation period of the disease is so long—in many cases up to 20 years.
We can expect an explosion in newly identified cases in the forthcoming decade. Even if all the routes of transmission were somehow blocked or closed today, there is still the prospect of a very large number of cases emerging over the next 10 to 20 years. Some medical authorities have suggested that hepatitis C has the potential to be an even greater killer in the long term than AIDS. That is extremely alarming. The fact that so many people are undiagnosed and unaware of the disease that they carry makes it even more alarming. Of the 80 per cent. of cases in which the virus makes itself felt, the vast majority will develop into a chronic illness. Some 20 per cent. of the people concerned will contract cirrhosis of the liver, and of those half will develop liver cancer.
284WH
Even among those less severely affected, the disease can be debilitating, with symptoms that include fatigue, depression, lethargy and a resultant poor quality of life. Furthermore, if as many people develop the illness as has been predicted, the number needing treatment for HCV in the next decade will dramatically increase. That will impose significant costs on the national health service. As several other hon. Members have pointed out, planning and preparation are necessary, so that the national health service will be able to do what is needed in the coming decade.
I would like reassurance from the Minister that the Government are prepared to tackle several issues that are significant for people suffering from the disease. The current lottery for treatment, dependent on where one lives, which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, must be grappled with and ended immediately. It is unacceptable that one's postcode or address should determine the standard of treatment that one receives.
Treatment for hepatitis C, a combination therapy involving interferon and ribavirin, costs £9,600 per annum per patient. However, although it can cure up to 40 per cent. of patients with HCV, the majority of health authorities either do not provide it or provide it on a limited and inadequate scale. In a survey conducted by the British Liver Trust in 1998, it was found that only a fifth of health authorities had any sort of strategy for tackling HCV and that fewer than one third had a budget for treating it.
Although the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended in October 2000 that patients suffering from moderate or severe hepatitis C should be given combination therapy—interferon alpha and ribavirin—I fear that that will not be enough to solve the postcode lottery. Health authorities will still have to prioritise funding to meet the cost of treatment. The costs have been estimated by NICE at £18 million per annum initially, yet that figure excludes the associated costs of pathology, virology, radiology and specialist nursing.
The verdict of every reputable HCV specialist is that spending money early will save a great deal of money later. However, it is questionable what incentive health authorities have to invest those considerable sums. I believe that the barrier to funding relatively expensive drug therapies such as the combination therapy in question could be largely eliminated by the creation of a central funding mechanism for such exceptional medicines, separate from health authority budgets. Such an initiative would go a long way towards ending the lottery that is blighting the distribution of treatment for those suffering from hepatitis C.
As many other hon. Members have mentioned, another fundamental problem is the lack of proper facilities in many areas for the testing and counselling of HCV patients. Moreover, there is no common protocol to which health authorities work in looking after and managing such patients, before and after testing. The way in which patients are presented with their test results is too often insensitive and ill thought out in the extreme. A great many receive no advance preparation for what they are to hear, and no advice about it afterwards.

285WH
According to a recommendation by NICE:
"Confidential HCV testing and counselling should be made available whether or not treatment is initiated."
The Government should urgently heed that advice. Confidential testing facilities of the type that exist for HIV would encourage many to undergo an HCV test. Presently, many people are deterred, partly through ignorance, but also, more worryingly and sadly, from fear that the information will feature on their medical records and, in turn, have a stigmatising effect on their prospects of obtaining employment, life insurance or a mortgage. It could also affect personal relationships. As a result, it is likely that many people whose condition could otherwise be treated are not even being diagnosed.
The far-reaching effects of stigmatisation of the disease are particularly worrying. Miss Sharon Moore is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who wanted to attend the debate but was prevented from doing so by his duties as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. The tragedy for Miss Moore is not confined to the problems of suffering from the illness; it extends to problems in seeking employment. She applied for a job with Bedfordshire police, and when it became known to them that she suffered from hepatitis C they refused to employ her. Those attitudes should not be acceptable among employers and in society today.
More needs to be done to provide funding for research. Much about hepatitis C remains unknown. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned how he tried to discover the priorities in research into hepatitis. He was dismayed at the lack of such research. Sadly, he is right. We need more research to help us to cope with the problem. It is crucial, as there are apparently at least six strains of the virus, each with about 40 sub-strains. Over time those strains may change spontaneously. It is partly for that reason that no vaccine for hepatitis C has yet been developed.
Some aspects of the pathogenesis of HCV are still hidden and the precise mechanisms by which HCV causes liver cancer have not yet been identified. We therefore need a simple, cost-effective and reliable diagnostic test, both for the initial detection of HCV and for monitoring the disease as it progresses. There are still no firm data on the susceptibility of HCV to disinfecting agents, which is important bearing it in mind that the virus, unlike HIV, for example, can survive for many hours outside the body.
It is not only the treatment of hepatitis C that is a matter of concern. More needs to be done to tackle some of the problems of sufferers—not just haemophiliacs, although it is indeed tragic and appalling that those people have contracted HCV, but people who are not haemophiliacs and who have contracted it. I naturally feel deep horror at the fact that far too many people have been infected by the disease while giving medical treatment.
I urge the Minister to attend carefully to points that have been made repeatedly in this debate by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Unanimity strengthens the case that has been put. I ask the Minister to take positive action to enhance and improve research, diagnosis and treatment, and to attend to the ancillary issues such as needle exchange that hon. Members have eloquently explained.
12.9 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on giving us the opportunity to discuss what are by common consent important public health issues, which affect many thousands of people. Like many hon. Members, I have constituents who have been caught up in this terrible tragedy. I am always struck by the dignity and forcefulness of the arguments that they present to me about how we can move on from the present situation.
This morning's contributions have been carefully presented and the arguments well marshalled. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, there is substantial consensus about some of the major issues with which the Government must deal. In the course of my remarks, I shall mention what the Government are doing to deal with some of the concerns that have been voiced. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) accused the Government of taking an ostrich-like stance over hepatitis C, but that is absolutely untrue, and I shall explain why in a second.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East spoke eloquently about the scale of the problem that we must deal with, and I shall spell out precisely how we intend to take our work forward. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) that we need to penetrate public consciousness as regards the danger of hepatitis C. I shall set out how we shall do that in a minute.
Hon. Members have referred to the problems of postcode prescribing. It is important that the Government tackle that issue, and we now have the means in place to do so. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is the first body in the world to advise advanced health care systems about the cost-effectiveness and value of new drug treatments. That approach is being widely mirrored, and many other countries are, as we speak, examining how to tackle such issues. Extra investment is going into the NHS to allow health authorities to take important steps in procuring new drug treatments, which are expensive, as all hon. Members have acknowledged.
It is entirely reasonable to express concern about postcode prescribing, but we should not lose sight of or fail to chalk up our successes in the battle against that problem. We tend to discount our successes as we move on to the next set of issues that hon. Members and people outside the House want us to deal with. It is important that we take stock of some of our successes, such as the availability of taxanes, of new drugs to treat Alzheimer's and of statins, the anti-cholesterol drugs.
We are ma king progress, although there is more to do. However, it ill behoves hon. Members—particularly those who were once responsible for dealing with such issues—to draw a polite veil over their record. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford conveniently failed to describe the measures that the last Conservative Government put in place to deal with the postcode prescribing against which he railed today. Perhaps other hon. Members share my impression that there is a dangerous tendency among some to suggest that the postcode prescribing that we are tackling appeared only on 1 May 1997 and that there was no such thing in the

287WH
NHS before then. I was a Member of Parliament during the last Conservative Administration and for the life of me I cannot remember them taking a single opportunity to outline a coherent strategy for dealing with the issue. We are putting a strategy in place.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made some important points, and I shall deal with them. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that hepatitis C is a serious public health issue, which we must urgently address. I also agree with him that we need a national strategy, and I shall say more about our work to prepare and develop one in a second.
The hon. Member for Romsey wanted me to open a relationship with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to discuss several issues. I have a very good relationship with him. She asked me specifically about section 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. She will be aware that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been considering the relevance of section 9 and is advising us on possible changes to deal with the concerns. She will understand that I cannot make a definitive statement about the future of section 9 today, but it is certainly being considered.
Dr. Iddon: Is the Minister prepared to ask NICE to reconsider its advice not to give injecting drug users combination therapy because of the problems of reinfection and compliance that I mentioned?
Mr. Hutton: I shall certainly deal with the issue, if my hon. Friend will be patient. The problem is that there has been some misunderstanding about NICE's recommendations, but it is the institute's job to deal with those, not mine. There is an appeals process, and decisions are subject to judicial review. There has, however, been a problem understanding NICE's comments on the issue, and I want to clear that up.
Hon. Members have referred throughout to three common elements: better prevention, better testing and better treatment for those who carry the virus. Those form the core of the Government's approach.
The virus was first identified in 1989, but the significance of its association with chronic liver disease and the number of people infected were not initially appreciated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East rightly said, hepatitis C is now justly recognised as a global public health issue. As he and others said, the World Health Organisation estimates that there might be as many as 170 mill ion chronic carriers around the world. Subject to the caveats that must be made about such data, studies suggest that England has a relatively low prevalence of hepatitis C. The best estimate of the number likely to have been infected and become chronic carriers is about 250,000. I accept what the hon. Member for Romsey said about the accuracy of that data, but it is a fact of life that we must work on the basis of best estimates. I shall say in a second how we might improve data collection systems.
I accept, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said, that there is likely to be an increase in the diagnosis of hepatitis C in the next 10 years as individuals who
288WH
have carried the virus for some time without symptoms are identified through wider testing of groups that have been at risk. It is worth bearing it in mind that the figure is nearly 10 times that for people who have been infected with HIV. In contrast with HIV, however, we have an effective drug treatment for hepatitis C in many cases of infection. There is, however, no room for complacency.
In most cases, hepatitis C is spread by contact with the blood of someone who is infected. Injecting drug misusers and those who received blood transfusions or blood products before screening and viral inactivation processes were introduced have been the main at-risk groups. Data from the unlinked anonymous surveys show that the prevalence among injecting drug users in contact with treatment and support agencies is about 33 per cent. Hepatitis C may be spread to a much lesser extent between sexual partners and from mother to baby. As many hon. Members said, health care workers are at particular risk from occupational exposure.
Once transmitted, the virus can quickly cause inflammation of the liver. That may become apparent as jaundice, which is an acute illness, but, fortunately, one from which people recover. For about 80 per cent. of people, however, the infection becomes chronic and has longer-term health implications.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that some people with hepatitis C experience social prejudice and discrimination; the hon. Member for West Chelmsford referred to a particularly shocking case. It is not easy to deal with that issue, and I look forward to receiving advice about how we might do so from the national steering group that we set up. In part, such behaviour may represent a lack of public knowledge about the disease. It must be tackled as we improve patient care. The group that we set up earlier this year to develop a national strategy for hepatitis C will discuss the problem.
People with chronic HCV infection can remain virtually symptomless for many years. However, individuals may suffer more general debilitating effects that can affect their quality of life and, in a proportion of cases, the liver may become progressively inflamed and damaged. If not treated, that may eventually progress, over a number of years, to severe liver disease. Routine death statistics are difficult to interpret, and we have had some discussion about how many people are dying from hepatitis C.
Hepatitis C has been identified by the Public Health Laboratory Service as the contributory cause of around 200 deaths every year in the United Kingdom, so I cannot confirm the statistics given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. It is clear that hepatitis C infection contributes to deaths from the complications of chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer. I accept that there is likely to be some under-reporting—that is obviously the case. We need to improve the surveillance of serious liver disease associated with hepatitis C. I will say more about that in a moment.
Many hon. Members have referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which assessed the use of a drug combination therapy involving ribavirin and interferon for treating hepatitis C and published its recommendations last October. The therapy has been shown to be twice as effective as any previous treatment.

289WH
NICE's recommendations provide clear and authoritative advice for clinicians and health care providers, which should ensure that patients receive effective treatment, and were welcomed by patient groups, including the Haemophilia Society.
Sandra Gidley: The problem is not so much with NICE, whose guidance one may or may not question. We are all agreed that its guidance is timely, but the local health authorities are not given extra funding to afford those guidelines, and are forced to make decisions to stop giving other treatments. Authorities may have to ration patients on the basis that they can afford to take on only 10 a year for a particular treatment. Some hon. Members have called for a central budget. Would that not be a better way of tackling the problem, when we know the extent of it?
Mr. Hutton: I was just coming to that. The hon. Lady is not right in saying that health authorities and trusts are not given additional resources to manage the additional costs associated with implementing NICE recommendations. It is true that there is no dedicated pot of money for that, but we must bear in mind the unprecedented increase in overall NHS resources that has taken place this year and will take place in the next two years. In this financial year, for example, health authorities received an 8.9 per cent. increase in resources. Of course, decisions must then be made, and no one is disputing that authorities may have to make hard judgment calls.
Others have suggested that we should have a ring-fenced budget for hepatitis C treatment. I am not convinced about that, although I understand the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and others. We all want patients to be properly supported and provided for, but the mainstreaming of funding ensures that local providers of care have more say in the priorities that they fix for their local populations. That is the underlying principle behind shifting the balance of power. Hypothecating funding for this treatment would raise obvious questions about consistency in the way we provide for people with other illnesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East asked me to consider the question of specialised commissioning of services for people with hepatitis C. I will come back to that question in a moment.
There are grounds for optimism that further improvements in treatment will follow. The modified slow-release form of interferon—pegylated interferon—became available this year and appears to be more effective than conventional interferon. I understand that NICE is considering that new drug as a topic of future appraisal. The Department is funding research to establish the effectiveness of the early treatment of chronic hepatitis C with interferon alpha, or a combination of interferon and ribavirin.
Several hon. Members referred generally to the issue of research; the hon. Member for West Chelmsford called for more research, as did others. I agree that that is necessary, which is why, last November, the Medical Research Council spent £1.8 million in developing new and further research proposals for hepatitis C. In the past four years, the Department has spent a further £1.5 million on hepatitis C research.
290WH
Concern has been expressed that NICE guidelines seem to exclude injecting drug users from hepatitis C treatment, but that is not the case. General advice recognises potential difficulties in treating injecting drug misusers, but NICE recommends that, if a prescribing clinician is reliably assured that reinfection, compliance and drug interactions pose no problems, a person in that group should be considered for combination therapy. In line with good medical practice, the emphasis should be on the clinician assessing each case in conjunction with the patient. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, some evidence exists that injecting drug users may be successfully treated for hepatitis C.
We also heard calls for new guidelines for hepatitis C treatment, to which we have tried to respond. The Royal College of Physicians, the British Society of Gastroenterology and the British Association for the Study of the Liver published evidence-based clinical guidelines in July that will provide a framework for patients with hepatitis C to receive high-quality treatment and care. That work has the full support of the Department of Health.
We recognise, too, the increasing importance of hepatology, not only for patients with hepatitis C but for those with other complex liver diseases, who should have access to specialist hepatology units with the necessary knowledge and expertise. We have worked on a commissioning framework to ensure that specialised hepatology services are developed to uniform standards throughout the country. That may go some way to meeting the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. The Department is due to publish the national specialised services definition set later this month, which will be used as the basis for identifying those specialised services that require some form of collaborative commissioning. Hepatology, which includes specialised services for the treatment of patients with viral hepatitis, is part of that set. I will ensure that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate are kept fully informed of developments.
Unfortunately, time always runs out during debates such as this. Hon. Members asked me to respond to several issues, which I will try to move on to quickly because time is of the essence.
The issue of compensation was raised. I, personally, found that the most difficult decision of all. We have listened carefully to arguments for a special payments scheme for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C similar to that in place for HIV. After a long and difficult consideration, we came to the same conclusion as the previous Government, that such a scheme should not be established. That was not a view we came to lightly. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East that every one of my colleagues who considered the issue and met individuals affected by this tragedy found it a difficult decision to make. As I said earlier, as soon as technology became available to render blood products safe, it was introduced. The policy of successive Governments has been that compensation, or other financial help to patients, is paid only when the NHS or individuals working in it are at fault. I do not believe that the NHS has been at fault in this case.
Brian Cotter: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: With great respect, I will not, as I have only a couple more minutes left and want to respond to all the points that were made.
The issue of compensation has been widely debated in the House. I know that some hon. Members take a different view, which I respect, but it is not the view that the Government have come to. However, we intend to develop options for reforming the system for dealing with clinical negligence claims. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 10 July, we will produce a White Paper on that subject early next year. The chief medical officer is chairing an expert advisory committee to explore the issues and options, one of which is whether no-fault compensation for NHS patients may be appropriate in future.
The other issue that was discussed at some length today was the need for a national strategy, which I agree is necessary. We fully recognise the importance of hepatitis C as a public health issue and the need to have in place effective prevention, testing and treatment services. To assist us in developing our strategy, we recently established a multi-disciplinary steering group to consider the issues. The steering group is chaired by Professor Howard Thomas of Imperial College School of Medicine, who is a world authority in the field, and comprises health professionals, academics and voluntary and community sector members. I hope that hon. Members are reassured by the fact that the group not only is a collection of experienced medical practitioners but has a strong lay involvement, including Manlio Fahrni, chair of Re-act and vice-chair of the recently launched national forum, the UK Assembly on Hepatitis C; Lorraine Hewitt from Action on Hepatitis C and a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; Tania Machell, head of the National Hepatitis C Resource Centre and Grant McNally of the National Drug Users Development Agency.
The steering group is considering the scope and effectiveness of current measures to tackle hepatitis C in several different settings, including he prison environment. It will advise us on any gaps or areas for improvement, including prevention activities and provision of needle exchange schemes—issues that were widely discussed today. The group has already identified that improvements in surveillance are necessary, which was a concern of the hon. Member for Romsey. It is also necessary to raise awareness for health professionals in general and to inform the public about hepatitis C.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I regret that time is up. I thank the Minister for his reply.

Water Supply (Ceredigion)
12.30 pm
Mr. Simon ThomasI begin by seeking agreement with the Minister. We do not always see eye to eye on Welsh issues, but I should like his agreement regarding one basic fact. I do not want him to misinterpret what I am going to say. I hope that he will agree, without any caveats, that Wales is a wet country, and I will rest my case on that.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Even on Sundays.
Mr. Thomas: Yes, even on Sundays.
According to the excellent institute of geography and earth sciences at Aberystwyth university, the typical rainfall in Ceredigion varies from less than 1,000 mm per annum on the coast to 1,600 mm on the uplands. That compares with approximately 3,000 mm in Snowdonia. In the Welsh context, Ceredigion is not as wet as one might suppose. It is an excellent tourist destination, especially on the coast. The Minister may be aware that the coast receives considerable sunshine. Nevertheless, Ceredigion's rainfall is greater than the England and Wales average.
When I initiated the debate, I half expected a Minister from the Department of the Environment, Food and Regional Affairs to respond. I am, of course, pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is present. When I tabled several questions on this matter, they were also transferred to the Wales Office, but I have not received a reply from the Minister. I am sure that I will soon. I thought that DEFRA might be responsible because the subject impacts on a whole range of environmental considerations about the public water supply, particularly the role of the Environment Agency.
In the context of the rainfall in Ceredigion and of Wales' reputation as a land of rain and reservoirs—though most of those do not provide water for Wales' needs—one can imagine the incredulity earlier this year when the Environment Agency announced that it would oppose Ceredigion county council's unitary development plan on grounds of insufficient water resources in the south of the county.
There are some good reasons for opposing Ceredigion county council's unitary development plan, not least the fact that 6,500 new homes—far too many for such a rural county—are proposed in it. Also contained within the plan are essential economic development projects, such as the Aberporth technology park, an objective 1 strategic site approved by the National Assembly for Wales, for which £2 million has already been topsliced in principle. When the Environment Agency made it clear that because of the lack of water it would oppose not only such large-scale developments but individual dwelling houses or infill developments in the planning process, the people of Ceredigion realised that there was a serious problem with the public water supply in the south of the county. Such a state of affairs in a water-rich county cannot be tolerated.
When I examined the background, it became clear that many agencies had been aware of this problem for several years. It had simply not been brought to the

293WH
public's attention, which is one of my reasons for initiating this debate. These matters must be out in the open and discussed. I understand from other sources that 17 other areas of Wales will shortly face similar problems to south Ceredigion, which is one of the two or three worst affected in Wales at present. One of the difficulties in Wales is that the water-zone areas are smaller than in England, which brings the problems to the fore more clearly than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
In the previous periodic review, Dwr Cymru, as it then was, approached the Office of Water Services with a view to including plans to remedy the problem in the next five-year period. To be fair to Dwr Cymru, it was aware of the problem a couple of years ago and came forward with plans to deal with it. Unfortunately, those plans were refused and it is interesting to reflect on the Ofwat response:
"While close attention has been paid to the detailed zonal analysis provided with your business plan …the Director does not believe that your plan demonstrated either a need, or customer support for this enhancement"—
the extra water into south Ceredigion.
"No allowance has been made in the Draft Determination."
It is not surprising that there was no customer support: customers did not know about it. I shall demonstrate, however, that the need is undoubtedly there. The refusal by Ofwat is driven by Government determination to cut prices to water consumers rather than to make environmental enhancements and it threatens to hold back economic development and environmental protection in south Ceredigion.
I shall briefly outline the current problems with water supply in the south of the county. No large-scale reservoirs provide for Ceredigion. Only 2 per cent. of the rainfall used in south Ceredigion can be stored in the Teifi pools—man-made and natural. Therefore, 98 per cent. of the water is extracted from the River Teifi at either Ystrad Fflur or Llechryd. That serves a huge area from the south of the river to Llanrhystud and includes some areas of north Caernarfonshire and even Pembrokeshire. Altogether that zonal area supplies 55,000 persons.
Ministerial guidance on maintaining public water supplies, issued in January 1999, requires that each water supply zone, such as south Ceredigion, have sufficient headroom between water availability and the projected demands based on critical dry years. No such headroom currently exists in Ceredigion and has not existed for several years. The existing deficit is projected to grow significantly over the next five to 25 years. In making those determinations, Ofwat may have observed those ministerial guidelines in the breach.
What is the size of the current deficit in the water-rich county of Ceredigion? Presently, the deficit between available supply and demand for water is 1.7 million litres a day—the equivalent of water for 2,800 domestic properties. One can well imagine what happens in the summer with the influx of tourists to caravan parks. Most caravans these days have plumbed-in water: their residents no longer go to a standpipe in the middle of the field. Dairy farms also take from the public water supply rather than from their own in the summer, so the increase in the deficit has grown—so much so that in 1995, water had to be tankered into south Ceredigion. That was probably when the deficit first became widely known.
294WH
It gets worse because the projected deficit by 2004–05 is 3.4 million litres a day, the equivalent of water for 5,600 domestic properties, and by 2025 8.5 million litres a day, the equivalent of water for 14,000 domestic properties. Those projections are based on past performance and do not take new developments, such as the Aberporth technology park or any other developments that objective 1 brings to the area, into account.
Remedies to date have been the traditional ones: reduce leakage, a new bore hole in the middle of the county in Aeron valley and water efficiency projects initiated by the Environment Agency and Glas Cymru. We are exploring objective 1's potential for water as well as energy efficiency projects on farms. Tankering contingency plans have also been considered, though it is odd to be tankering water to a place such as south Ceredigion. The abstraction licence at Llechryd on the lower Teifi has been extended to 2005—temporarily, at least.
I have serious environmental concerns about the increase in abstraction from the River Teifi. The Teifi is a glorious fishing river, which attracts huge tourism, as does Llandysul, the centre of excellence associated with white-water canoeing in Wales. The Teifi is an environmental treasure. It is a historical river with many castles and scenes of great interest along its banks. It is to become a special area of conservation. Plainly it would not be acceptable under European guidelines to continue to extract more and more water from the Teifi and not to remedy the deficit of water provision in the south of the county.
Taking more water from the Teifi would be disastrous for fishing, tourism and the ecology of the river. However, as the Minister no doubt recognises, it will be disastrous for the economy and social well-being of Ceredigion if we cannot get more water into the south of the county to support the need there. Although I cannot understand Ofwat's initial refusal, I appreciate that it had some concerns about the fact that Glas Cymru does not have a policy on hosepipe bans, for example. That may have coloured Ofwat's decision. We should not bring water in tankers to the south of the county again.
There is a way forward. Glas Cymru, the new Welsh water body, has considered 26 different options for increasing the water supply to the south of the county. Its favoured option, which it has now decided upon, is a water transfer from the Claerwen water shed directly to the water extraction facility in Ystrad Fflur, which is on the opposite side of the mountain.
That is a direct water transfer from one storage facility to an extraction facility. It will not transfer the water of one river to another river, which might cause ecological and environmental concerns. As a Plaid Cymru Member, I might be expected to look forward to water that was once flowing into England flowing once more into Wales, but there is a sad side to this, which the Minister may know about. The ability to extract more from the Wye valley is partly due to the run-down of Corns in Llanwern, which has lessened water need in the lower Wye valley considerably.
The cost of the pipeline would not be huge when one considers that it would serve 55,000 people; it is in the order of £8 million to £9 million. Funding has been difficult because the initial refusal by Ofwat to put the

295WH
project in the approved programme meant that Glas Cymru would find it difficult to recoup the investment. There has been intensive lobbying over the past few weeks by Glas Cymru, Welsh Assembly Member Elin Jones and me. At a recent meeting, Ofwat's director general, Philip Fletcher, confirmed that Glas Cymru would be able to move ahead with that investment if it can be seen to deliver
"demonstrable outputs that are valued by customers".
I hope that the Minister will agree that that output would be valued by customers in south Ceredigion and should therefore be taken into consideration as an investment for the next periodic review. That investment by Glas Cymru can be recouped. The Minister will be aware that the new arrangements with Glas Cymru mean that it needs that security to show its bondholders that they can get their money back. The new model for Glas Cymru, which the Government are looking at for Railtrack, is one that we want to see working in Wales. I am sure that the Government agree that we need that underpinning.
Following a board meeting yesterday, Glas Cymru announced that it would move on with the new project in Ceredigion. I congratulate it on that. It will still be looking for partnership funding from bodies such as the Environment Agency, Ceredigion county council and the National Assembly for Wales, but it is a lesser issue than when I first applied for this debate. Yesterday's announcement has moved things along.
A couple of environmental concerns remain. The plan to transfer the water from the Claerwen water shed to the extraction at Ystrad Fflur has not yet been approved. It will need the approval of several different agencies: the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and English Nature, because, of course, the River Wye runs into England and affects the English as well as the Welsh ecology. All those organisations need to approve the plans of Glas Cymru.
I do not want to see any degradation of the environment on the uplands of Ceredigion, and we cannot continue to extract directly from the River Teifi at the same level. We must consider further water conservation measures, particularly in respect of farming, industry and caravan parks along the coast. It is not sustainable either to take in water in tankers, which has a huge environmental cost—one should consider fuel consumption, for example—or to thwart economic opportunities in south Ceredigion when water resources are not scarce.
Will the Minister monitor the progress of Glas Cymru in its negotiations with Ofwat, to ensure that the public concerns and values that Ofwat represents come across clearly to the company? That will mean that Glas Cymru will be able to make available finance that can be recouped in the next periodic review. I would be grateful if the Minister talked to the various agencies, because he is in an excellent position to do so. There is a unique mixture of devolved, non-devolved and English bodies, which must come together and realise the importance of the project for the economic and social future and viability of south Ceredigion. He should also ensure that environmental concerns are met, and that progress is
296WH
made to ensure that sufficient water is available to meet not only present needs, on which there is a deficit, but future needs, such as the Aberporth technology park.
I am sure that the Minister will join me in wishing that technology park every success. It is a vital objective 1 project, as the National Assembly has recognised. It will have to go through the planning process and meet all environmental guidelines, but a simple lack of water cannot be allowed to hold it back. I hope that, having brought the problem into the open and engaged the public in the issue of the lack of water supply in a water-rich environment such as Ceredigion, there will be much more urgent action to secure investment in time. Water delivery takes time to provide and if we are to meet the 2004–05 target, we must start now. Ofwat gave Glas Cymru the amber light this week. I want Glas Cymru to be given the green light on the environmental concerns. I would like the Minister to help me to achieve that.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. He asked me at the outset to agree that Wales is wet. In all truth, I must do that, but it has shattered one of my attempts over the past six years to persuade my English colleagues that we have less rain in Wales because we are closer to the Caribbean. I pay tribute to his efforts as the hon. Member for Ceredigion, which is a beautiful county. It is a wonderful place in which to live and to visit, and has some fine wine produced around Aberaeron. I have tasted the wine and certainly found it wet and welcoming.
Outside Cardiff, Ceredigion has been the fastest growing county in Wales. In the past 10 years, the population has increased by about 8 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ceredigion county council predicts that if that trends continues, a further 5,000 to 6,500 homes will be needed during the next 15 years. That will affect the water supply and provision, particularly in mid and south Ceredigion. It will be necessary to provide high-quality employment sites to sustain that growth and to support a viable local community. The Aberporth project is a positive and sympathetic way in which to introduce job and new skill opportunities into a community that would not perhaps have attracted them otherwise. Clearly, such a development will require a reliable water supply if it is to progress.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the recent decision on water supply to Ceredigion by means of a pipeline. I pay tribute to his efforts in securing that advance on behalf of his constituents. There has been debate on the way forward for water supply in mid and south Ceredigion, and concern has been expressed about increased abstraction from the River Teifi, which already provides some 98 per cent. of the water supply to that area.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the impact that greater abstraction would have on the environment and the river. The alternative, to which he has referred, is to transport water by pipeline from the Claerwen reservoir in the Elan valley. Dwr Cymru discussed that with Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and the Welsh Assembly. The pipeline will cost between £8 million and £9 million.

297WH
On 2 November, Ofwat's director general met representatives of Dwr Cymru, and told the company that Ofwat would agree to the proposed development, which would bring water from Elan valley to Ceredigion, if agreed outputs were met. The pipeline would be Dwr Cymru's concern, not Ofwat's. Ofwat has confirmed that the investment will be included in the company's regulatory capital value, so the investment will not be discounted at the next periodical review of water charges. Dwr Cymru is prepared to go ahead with the scheme on those conditions.
The Environment Agency supports the proposed pipeline transfer on water resource grounds. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the environment. The pipeline will cross or go under three sites of special scientific interest, although most of the land is owned by Dwr Cymru already. That may smooth discussions on how to proceed.
It will take time to construct a scheme on such a scale. Other factors, apart from the SSSIs that the pipeline will pass through, must be accounted for. Severn Trent Water and Dwr Cymru must agree on what additional water can be taken from the Claerwen reservoir. Dwr Cymru must obtain an abstraction licence from the Environment Agency, and may also need planning permission for a pumping station and an extension to the Strata Florida water treatment works. Those must all be in place before the scheme can go ahead.
I am pleased that the scheme has not been ruled out, although many steps have yet to be taken. We are making welcome progress on the solution. The hon. Gentleman asks me to continue to take an interest in the matter; I assure him that I shall. I will do all that I can to bring pressure on the agencies and other bodies involved in the scheme in order to bring about a favourable outcome. We have the opportunity for a sympathetic development scheme that will have a major impact on Ceredigion's economy in the early part of the century. That economy must not be stymied by problems with the water supply. We have a solution at hand. I hope that we pull together to ensure that it is realised.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): The hon. Member who has secured the next debate is present, but unfortunately the Minister is not, so I shall suspend the sitting until 1 o'clock.
12.53 pm
Sitting suspended.

Dormant Bank Accounts
1 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I am delighted to have an opportunity to raise this issue. Right hon. and hon. Members may know that there are two types of dormant bank account. The British Bankers Association defines a dormant account as an account where
"there have been no transactions (withdrawals or deposits) on it, other than transactions initiated by the bank (such as interest and charges), for a set period (usually at least a year…)"
and where
"the bank hasn't heard from the customer during that time."
If both criteria apply, the bank may write to ask whether the customer wishes to keep the account open. If the bank does not receive a reply, the account may be considered dormant.
The second type of dormant account has its origins at the start of the second world war, when the Government introduced legislation that froze the bank accounts of residents from enemy countries to prevent the enemy from benefiting from any assets held in this country. After the war, when the accounts were unfrozen, some were, not surprisingly, never reclaimed by their owners, which remains the case even today.
I became interested in the subject because I decided to check my standing orders and direct debits, as a routine exercise. I discovered that one standing order was paying the Nationwide building society the princely sum of £1 a month and had been for years. I thought that that was for an insurance policy or something similar, but when I went to the building society, I discovered that the money was going to a fund-raising account for Wrexham Labour party, in a neighbouring constituency where I had lived 20 years previously. The party had benefited for all that time; except that it had not, because it did not know that the account existed. I had the delight of telling my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) that he would inherit some of my money.
I wondered what would happen if I stopped paying that pound. The Nationwide building society would be sitting on a couple of hundred pounds that did not belong to it, and no one would know where the money was. I thought that there must be many such accounts and decided to look into the issue.
Obviously, no one knows the exact amount of money residing in dormant accounts, but there are various estimates, ranging from a conservative £5 billion to the huge sum of £20 billion. When the Irish Government introduced legislation to deal with the problem, they found that the estimates were half the amount that turned up, so we are actually talking about £10 billion to £80 billion. I will be delighted if my hon. Friend the Minister has any figures on that.
Whatever the exact figure, that vast amount of money has become the focus of consumer watchdog and media interest over the years. It has also provoked criticism about the commitment of, and efforts made by, high street banks to marry up dormant account holders with their money. In fairness to banks and building societies, I should point out that they have speeded up their efforts

299WH
lately. The schemes run by the BBA and the Building Societies Association have made improvements, but things are still fairly laissez-faire.
I am concerned today about dormant accounts that are not married up with their owners and those instances in which the money remains the legal property of the account holder but the banks and building societies are entitled to use the funds for their own benefit. If the account appears to have been forgotten, does not receive interest and is unlikely to be withdrawn, it becomes in effect an asset of the bank and, therefore, part of its capital.
If the estimates that I have given are accurate, it is obvious that banks and building societies are sitting pretty with huge sums of money that do not belong to them at their disposal. I want the Government to pursue the progressive approach adopted by other countries in recent years and ensure that money from such accounts is used for the greater good, and not for the sole, and extremely profitable, benefit of the host bank or financial institution. The time has come for the Government to be empowered to take custody of dormant bank and building society accounts, and put the huge sums of money to good use throughout the UK.
A successful scheme is in operation not far away; in July, the Irish Parliament enacted the Dormant Accounts Act 2001, which provided for the transfer of money from dormant accounts and intestate estates to the newly established and independently managed dormant accounts fund. The Act stated that dormant deposits, share and current accounts, deposit receipts, petty balance accounts, savings certificates and savings bonds would be transferred to the new dormant accounts fund. I do not suggest to my hon. Friend that we set up a dormant accounts fund, as we already have one; the National Lottery Commission. The money could be put into the lottery system for the benefit of the good causes.
The Irish legislation stipulates that if owners of accounts that have been dormant for 15 years or more do not come forward to reclaim their moneys, the balance of those accounts will be transferred directly to the dormant accounts fund, which is managed by a Government-appointed board of trustees who distribute the money to local community and charitable groups and societal initiatives.
The legislation also places a statutory onus on banks, building societies, credit unions and the post office to try to contact dormant account owners. Following a 16-month investigation by the financial institution concerned, if the account and account holder are not matched-up, the money is transferred to the dormant accounts fund. Under the legislation, the financial institutions are required to maintain registers of dormant accounts, including owner name, address, the date on which the account was considered dormant, the date of transfer to the dormant accounts fund and the date of repayment if the owner is traced.
Irish legislation does not at any stage preclude dormant accounts being married up to their rightful owners. If the transfer of a dormant account to the fund has already taken place, the money can be returned to
300WH
the rightful account holder if ownership is proven. The fund keeps some money back for that eventuality, which is eminently sensible. There has been a great deal of publicity about the legislation in Ireland, and many people have received surprise windfalls from accounts that they had forgotten about. I forgot about mine, but, unfortunately, I did not receive a windfall; Wrexham Labour party did.
The legislation prompted the banks to re-double their efforts to trace account holders in fear of losing the money to the dormant account fund. It gave the banks, building societies and financial institutions an incentive to trace owners of whom they had lost track. Those people may want to keep their money where it is, but the owners can have confidence that their money will not be lost.
Prior to the legislation, the Irish Government undertook a consultative process with the financial institutions to establish agreement about precisely which accounts would be seized. During that process, the Irish Bankers Federation participated actively and welcomed the Government's plan, I think belatedly. However, that was understandable in the circumstances.
The time has come for the Government to consider seriously how other countries have tackled the issue and to consider putting the huge sums of money currently sitting idly in dormant bank accounts to good use, rather than leaving it for the benefit of the banks' profits.
A recent development has been the creation of a new type of dormant account; those previously held by terrorist groups in the UK and elsewhere. Tens of millions of pounds are now effectively dormant because of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's swift and decisive action following the attacks in the United States. Legislation on the issue would also have a deterrent effect in preventing those funds from being set up in the first place, because terrorist funds placed in sleeper accounts would be brought to light.
The Government should initiate and publish a consultation paper on the issue of dormant accounts with a view to introducing a progressive and innovative scheme for the UK to redistribute this huge amount of money for the benefit of the wider community and not to boost the profits of the high street bank. An initiative by the Government to add into the equation the newly acquired money seized from terrorist networks operating in the UK would be extremely popular among the public.
I sincerely hope that the Minister and Government will look favourably on my suggestion. I believe that it would work successfully, as it has in other countries; not just Ireland, but the United States as well. Such legislation would benefit many people, both directly—through help for those who have forgotten about their bank accounts—and indirectly, through good causes.
1.10 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr. Winterton. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on securing the debate. He highlights an issue that is often overlooked by those who are dealing with the many other changes that are taking place in the financial sector. Clearly, the subject is interesting.

301WH
The United Kingdom has one of the most successful financial services industries in the world. The industry plays a significant role in our economy; London is by far Europe's largest international financial centre, and Scotland is one of the world's major fund management centres, with over £250 billion under management. It is vital that both domestic and international consumers and businesses have confidence in UK financial institutions.
The issue of dormant bank accounts is a relevant factor in building such confidence. Consumers need assurances that they can have access to their assets, even if they have not been in contact with the deposit-taking institution for some time. That is why the Government believe that there should be appropriate resources available to help reunite customers with their assets. My hon. Friend spoke from personal experience; I found his anecdote very interesting indeed. Not long ago, my husband learned that he had a similar standing order, dating back many years, which was going to a constituency Labour party of which he is no longer a member. Thus, I share my hon. Friend's experience.
However, not only my hon. Friend and I have had such experiences. Customers or benefactors of deceased customers can find it difficult to track down funds in accounts that have been left inactive for some time. Institutions may change their corporate name after a merger or after a conversion; for example, from a building society to a bank. In the meantime, the customer may move or lose their account details and. in the process, lose contact with the institution at which they have money deposited. If a bank is unable to contact a customer, it will eventually cease sending correspondence. The account is classed as dormant, although the money in the account will always remain the property of the account holder or, if the account holder has died, his or her legal heirs.
Until this year, customers who did not know the name of the institution that held their account had to complete a separate claim form and send it to each bank or building society at which the account might possibly be held. That was often time consuming, and it was more difficult if the customer had relatively little information about his or her account. However, several important initiatives to improve the process of reuniting customers with their deposits were launched this year.
In May, the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association each launched a new scheme to help customers trace old accounts, which involved establishing a dedicated dormant accounts unit to handle enquiries, and producing and making widely available one standard claim form. Under the British Bankers Association system, customers can get advice from the central unit and, if they wish, make a claim electronically. Their point of contact will remain with the unit. Information is then provided to the banks, and the unit will advise the customer on the outcome of the claim. Information on mergers is also available on the British Bankers Association website to help customers identify the bank that holds their account.
Since the launch of the centralised service in M ay, the British Bankers Association has received over 1,000 claims. So far, 200 claims have been fully processed, with nearly a quarter of those resulting in customers being reunited with their deposits.
302WH
The Building Societies Association also launched its own central tracing service, in which all building societies participate. The claim form used is similar to that of the British Bankers Association, so that information can be transferred more easily between the two schemes. Since the start of the building societies scheme, there have been about 10 inquiries each week for claim forms.
It is not just in the private sector that the Government believe that facilities should be available to help customers locate their deposits. The registrar's department at the Bank of England operates a system for searching the records of Government stock. I am pleased that, this week, the National Savings bank was able to announce the launch of its new tracing service. National Savings undertakes about 75,000 traces a year. Under the previous system, customers were asked to write to the particular National Savings office that administered the product type for which the search was required. National Savings has launched a more comprehensive and transparent system that will be easier to use. Customers will be able to track down more than one product at a time because they can use one standard form for all bonds, certificates and accounts, and deal with a single contact office.
I welcome those initiatives, which remain free and offer a better service to customers. I hope that over time, through publicity and word of mouth, customers will become increasingly willing and able to use those schemes and reconnect to the products that are rightly theirs.
My hon. Friend raised points concerning the size of assets placed in dormant accounts. As he mentioned, many figures have been quoted in the media; sometimes amounts as much as £20 billion or even £40 billion. Those figures exaggerate the real size of the issue. Although the Government do not have complete figures, an Inland Revenue study in 1997 suggested that the total amount could be between £2 billion and £4 billion. That is still a sizeable amount, but not as large as the figures that have been suggested. It is not possible to calculate an exact figure, because different institutions use their own definitions of dormant funds.
The example of the Irish system is interesting, as it includes a statutory duty for financial institutions to contact dormant account owners. However, it would be unfair to say that UK banks and building societies do not try and investigate dormant bank accounts. Once an account has been identified as inactive, banks will write to the customer to locate them. If the bank or building society believes it has lost contact, it will no longer send correspondence to the customer. That is sensible; it is important that searches for customers do not break customer confidentiality and do not allow account details to become public. That could lead to financial crime and attempts to defraud the banks.
Providing that confidentiality is not breached, I am willing to consider different ways to facilitate customers becoming reunited with their accounts. When considering the Irish system, we must be wary of the potential regulatory burdens that a statutory approach could place on institutions. We would need to define in law what constituted an effective search for dormant bank account owners and to design a system that was sensitive to the relative sums involved and the pertinent circumstances for each account. There are merits in

303WH
considering solutions that need no recourse to legal action, such as centralised tracing services, for which we have yet to evaluate the impact.
My hon. Friend's proposals would entail the removal of dormant funds from banks and their use for charitable purposes or the national lottery. Those proposals raise practical issues; the biggest difficulty would be the liquidity issue for the banking sector, which would have to be handled extremely carefully. Across the financial sector, there is no uniform definition about what constitutes dormant funds. Safeguards are needed when people come forward to claim assets that were removed from the institution in which they were deposited.
We must also consider issues of principle. The funds are the property of the original depositor, not of the banks; nor are they the property of the Government or of charitable causes. We should first put the emphasis on reuniting customers with the assets that are rightfully theirs, and focus on promoting the schemes that were put into operation earlier this year, which I have outlined. The more successful those schemes are, the more customers will be reunited with their deposits. I will consider with interest the take-up of the schemes and the success of tracing them in the future.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I agree with everything that the Minister said about finding ways of uniting people with their dormant bank accounts. The one flaw, of course, is that if someone is dead, or does not know that a bank account exists, he or she will not put in a claim form.
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point; the property still rightfully belongs to the deceased person's heirs, and it would be desirable in the first instance to reunite them with the funds if at all possible.
At this stage, however, it is probably too early to consider legislative changes when new procedures have just been put in place to help owners of dormant accounts to find their assets. We do not have any plans to introduce legislation to take dormant assets from banks, but we will keep the situation under review. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention the model that Ireland provides.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises the urgent action that the Government are taking to ensure that terrorist assets have no safe haven in the United Kingdom. To date, we have frozen some £70 million in 38 bank accounts. However, these are not dormant accounts in any usual sense, nor would it be appropriate for the Government to redistribute such funds. Our powers of restraint come from the UN Security Council resolutions under the United Nations Act 1946, which imposes sanctions on individuals and organisations suspected of involvement with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. We implement the UN sanctions regime with authority to freeze the funds of listed terrorist suspects. We have no powers of confiscation. If the United Nations eventually decided to remove a name from its list, we would release any funds held under that name.
In the wake of the tragic events of 11 September, international co-operation has taken on a more serious complexion, and the financial services industry has a
304WH
role to play. Stable, efficient markets are the drivers of growth and productivity; they are not the playground for funding terrorists. The action that Britain has already taken under the UN sanctions regimes, and the further measures announced by the Chancellor a few weeks ago, mark our determination to block the funding streams that sustain terrorism.
We propose further powers to enhance anti-terrorism measures: legislation that will allow swifter, more targeted freezing of terrorist assets; a new regulatory regime for bureaux de change, which came into force on 12 November; the strengthening of the obligation on the regulated sector to report suspicions that funds are destined for terrorism; police powers to monitor accounts that may be used to facilitate terrorism; and law enforcement powers to seize terrorist cash anywhere in the UK. We are also working to establish new international standards on measures to combat terrorist financing. By working with the financial services industry and the international community, we can help to counter the threat from terrorists by cutting off their access to funds.
The Government want to get a fair deal for all consumers. That means that we must ensure that there is effective competition in the financial services industry. Don Cruickshank's report on banking suggested that there was a lack of competition and that consumers—businesses and individuals—were getting a raw deal. We are acting on his recommendations to reform the regulation of payment systems. Such a reform could lead to savings of £1 billion a year for businesses and consumers. Many will be aware that we have already consulted on our proposals for reform and that we are committed to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
We are also acting on Don Cruickshank's recommendation to investigate possible competition problems in the banking markets for small and medium-sized enterprises. The Competition Commission is due to report shortly. We have reviewed the voluntary codes of banking and mortgage services. We reported in July 2001 and made a number of important recommendations, aimed at improving competition significantly and increasing the levels of customer service in banking. The Government have asked the financial services industry to respond positively to those challenges.
Work in other areas of the financial services industry is part of the same piece. Following the review carried out by Paul Myners, the Chancellor has asked Ron Sandler to investigate the efficiency and flexibility of the savings and investment industry. Ron Sandler is working closely with the FSA to investigate whether the £1.5 trillion of assets that the industry controls are being allocated efficiently and whether consumers are being well served.
We are working to obtain the right framework in the United Kingdom; that means the right framework for consumers and competition. We believe that competition decisions should be taken by strong, proactive and independent competition authorities, free from political influence. To that end, the Government have announced that they will legislate to modernise the mergers regime and remove Ministers from the decision-making process in all cases, except when there are clearly defined exceptional public interest issues, such as

305WH
national security. More effective competition can only be good for all parties. Consumers will see costs fall and returns rise, and the industry will become leaner, meaner and better able to operate in the global marketplace.
I again thank my hon. Friend for instigating this debate and for raising an important issue that touches on the banking system and its liquidity, and the need to recognise the interests of consumers, charities and good causes in general. I note my hon. Friend's valuable points about intervention to help customers to locate dormant bank accounts and to transfer remaining dormant assets away from the banks. Important initiatives have been instigated this year to promote awareness of dormant bank accounts and to help customers to be reunited with their assets. I welcome those initiatives and encourage the finance industry to continue to find innovative and efficient ways to facilitate account-holders to find their dormant assets.
We should wait to see how, efficient and effective the measures are before considering whether further changes are necessary, but we shall keep the situation under review. I thank my hon. Friend for bring to my attention the examples from other countries, such as the interesting example of Ireland where action has been taken already on these matters.

Gitanjali Shrestha
1.27 pm
Sir John Stanley: Would you guide me, Mr. Winterton, on whether the debate may continue until 2 o'clock, notwithstanding that it is starting early?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am happy to help the right hon. Gentleman. We may continue until 2 o'clock, so the right hon. Gentleman has achieved extra time for his Adjournment debate.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful, Mr. Winterton.
I want to make it clear that, although I am chairman of the Britain-Nepal all-party parliamentary group, I am initiating this debate solely in my constituency capacity.
In 1997, my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Davey, were in Pokhara, Nepal, where Mr. Davey was taking part in the excellent British Executive Services Overseas scheme, under which retired business executives give their expertise and skills free to developing countries. During the course of that assignment, Mrs. Davey received an invitation to go to a nearby primary school to give the children some practice in speaking the English language. When she went there on the first day, she broke the ice by asking each child in the class what they wanted to do when they grew up. One boy wanted to be an airline pilot, a girl wanted to be a nurse, others wanted to be doctors and so on. She went round the class until she came to a very small girl in the front row. When Mrs. Davey asked that small girl what she wanted to be when she grew up, she replied that she wanted to grow like the other children. When the class ended and the children got up to go out, Mrs. Davey could see that this child was much smaller than the other children.
The little girl's name was Gitanjali Shrestha. At that time, she was aged 10 and had ceased growing at the age of five. I am glad to say that she is listening to this afternoon's debate, as are Mr. and Mrs. Davey. Mr. and Mrs. Davey made inquiries in Nepal with the school, with Gitanjali's parents and with local doctors, which revealed that there was no medical treatment available in Nepal for a child with Gitanjali's condition. Indeed, there was no possibility of making an accurate diagnosis in Nepal. If Gitanjali remained untreated, she would suffer serious social disadvantages as an adult in Nepal. Those disadvantages were already appearing in her relations with other children at her school.
Mr. and Mrs. Davey returned to the United Kingdom, where they got in touch with Great Ormond street hospital for sick children. They were referred to a leading British expert in the field, Professor Brook, who pointed out that under NHS provision rules, it would be impossible to provide free treatment for Gitanjali as a child citizen in Nepal. However, he said that if Gitanjali were brought to this country, he would make a diagnosis.
Mr. and Mrs. Davey, entirely at their own expense and with the full support of Gitanjali's family, brought Gitanjali to this country on a two-month medical visa in May 1998. Professor Brook saw her and diagnosed Turner syndrome, which is a growth-retarding disorder. He prescribed a complex medical regimen of tablets in a

307WH
particular combination and dosage. The regimen required careful and accurate monitoring in the interests of the child. Mr. and Mrs. Davey initially thought and hoped that it would be possible for Gitanjali to return to Nepal with a suitable long-term dosage of tablets where she could continue with Professor Brook's regimen under medical supervision.
Gitanjali returned to Nepal but sadly the arrangements that Mr. and Mrs. Davey had carefully put in place to ensure that Gitanjali had the correct medical supervision broke down. The medication was not administered correctly and Professor Brook's good work was reversed. Mr. and Mrs. Davey concluded that if Gitanjali were to get the medical treatment she required, the only place she would get it was the United Kingdom. They brought Gitanjali back to the United Kingdom on a six-month medical visa in December 1998 at their own expense.
Since Gitanjali has been back in this country—her stay has not been entirely continuous for reasons to which I shall come in a moment—her care, treatment and education have cost the British taxpayer not one penny. Gitanjali's board and lodging is provided entirely by Mr. and Mrs. Davey, who are her adopted grandparents with the full knowledge and appreciation of her family back home. Her medication is financed partly by Mr. and Mrs. Davey and partly by a generous contribution from the Kadoorie Charitable Foundation in Hong Kong. Mr. and Mrs. Davey pay for all Gitanjali's education at the Beechwood Sacred Heart school in Tunbridge Wells. As hon. Members will understand, Mr. and Mrs. Davey are not people of limitless resources by any manner of means, but they are people of magnificent generosity and wonderful compassion.
Professor Brook informed the Home Office at an early stage that it was essential that Gitanjali's medical treatment was made continuous. In a letter dated 7 October 2000, he wrote:
"The patient returned to this country for further assessment and reinstitution of a proper medical regimen, which is now in place. It would be in her interest for this status to be maintained for the foreseeable future."
Despite the fact that Gitanjali has cost the British taxpayer not one penny, and despite the fact that there is the clearest possible medical advice that it is in her medical interest to remain in this country, the six-monthly medical visa renewal process in which Mr. and Mrs. Davey have been engaged with the Home Office has been an absolute nightmare. Home Office officials advised them that the visa would not be renewed, but it subsequently was renewed. Officials delayed issuing the renewal visas; so much so that, on two occasions, Mr. and Mrs. Davey had no alternative but to return Gitanjali to Nepal to enable it to be renewed there, causing stress and anxiety to Gitanjali and incurring hundreds of pounds of additional expenditure for no needful reason.
In desperation, Mr. and Mrs. Davey came to see me. On 9 February this year I took up Gitanjali's case in strong terms with the hon. Member for Hornsey and
308WH
Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who was then a Home Office Minister. I subsequently received two letters from another former Minister, Lord Bassam, the second of which, dated 31 May, suggested that we were finding a way out of the nightmare of the six-monthly visa renewal. It stated:
"Further extensions of stay for private medical treatment will normally be granted provided the requirements of the Immigration Rules, which were outlined in my previous letter, continue to be met."
That was extremely helpful. Equally helpfully, he went on to point out that it was open to Mr. and Mrs. Davey to make a special application to the Secretary of State for Gitanjali to remain in the United Kingdom for longer than six months outside the immigration rules.
When Gitanjali's last medical six-monthly visa came up for renewal—the one that expired on the 30 June this year—Mrs. Davey sensibly applied for both the renewal of the visa and for the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion, under the circumstances, for Gitanjali to remain in the United Kingdom for longer. In her letter of 18 June, which I have with me today, Mrs. Davey made it absolutely clear in the final paragraph that if the application to the Secretary of State for leave to remain outside immigration rules was turned down, the application for the renewal of the six-monthly medical visa still stood and was definitely required.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): Did the application to remain outside immigration rules take the form of an application to stay for reasons of study, or was it in the form of another application?
Sir John Stanley: So that there is no misunderstanding between us, let me make it plain that the terms of the application are as set out in Mrs. Davey's letter of 18 June this year to the Minister's Department. I refer to the wording that is contained in that letter.
From my standpoint, and that of Mr. and Mrs. Davey and Gitanjali, the Home Office's handling of that double application was frankly shocking. Lord Bassam gave me a clear undertaking that the medical renewal visa would normally be granted, but we still await a decision from the Home Office on the application for renewal almost five months after the date of Mrs. Davey's letter.
Not only was the decision to turn down the application for leave to remain outside the immigration rules disappointing, but the terms in which it was explained, in a personally addressed letter to Gintanjali Strestha, were shameful. The final paragraph of the decision letter of 9 October reads as follows:
"You should leave the United Kingdom at the end of 10 working days from the date when you received this notice. If you fail to leave you may be prosecuted for an offence under the Immigration Act, the penalty for which is a fine of up to £2,500 and up to 6 months imprisonment and you will also be liable to be removed from the United Kingdom."
I must say to the Minister that to address a letter containing threats of fining and imprisonment to a 13-year-old girl who is suffering from a serious medical

309WH
disorder, has been in this country since December 1998 and is from Nepal—a country with which we have a special relationship—is scandalously and outrageously insensitive. I urge the Minister to review the practices of her Department when addressing such letters to children of Gitanjali's age.
I have two specific requests to put to the Minister. First, I hope that she will, perhaps in today's answer to the debate, state that the application for the renewal of the medical visa has been granted in accordance with the undertaking, given to me by Lord Bassam, that it would normally be granted given the medical circumstances. Secondly, I make a clear request to the Minister—I would like her complete attention because these points are profoundly important—that she and her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary give further consideration to putting aside immigration rules and enabling Gitanjali Shrestha to remain in this country for longer than six months. I do so on two grounds that have not been considered before by Ministers at least, and perhaps not even by officials.
The first ground is medically and personally sensitive, but I have the assent of Gitanjali and Mr. and Mrs. Davey to refer to it. As a result of Turner syndrome, Gitanjali will be unable to bear children. In Nepalese terms, she will therefore almost certainly be unable to marry and have a husband to support her financially through her adult life. The employment and financial security that she subsequently obtains in Nepal will depend wholly on the level of education she secures in this country while undergoing medical treatment. I put that key consideration in the Minister's mind as she contemplates whether the Secretary of State should grant, as I hope he will, Gitanjali leave to remain outside the immigration rules. That decision is fundamental to Gitanjali's educational opportunities and level of attainment, which will in turn be vital to her adult life in Nepal.
I turn to the second ground for the Minister's close consideration. Gitanjali now requires growth hormone treatment, and Professor Brook has confirmed that it will cost up to £50,000. As I have said, such treatment is not available to Gitanjali through the NHS. Mr. and Mr. Davey are trying to raise the money by approaching charities in the UK and elsewhere. However, the charities, understandably, will not contemplate making available such a sum unless they can be sure that Gitanjali will remain in the UK to receive treatment during the next few years; the period in which it must be administered. Gitanjali's visa status will prove critical in obtaining funding for growth hormone treatment through the charitable sector.
I ask the Minister to give the most careful consideration to the points that I have made. At certain times, and with some justification, my remarks have been somewhat critical of her Department's handling of a case in which she may be personally involved for the first time. I hope that she will bring a new look, a new sensitivity and a new compassion to the matter, and that she and her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree to my requests concerning visas for Gitanjali Shrestha.
1.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) on securing this debate. This is a very difficult subject that has caused great distress to those who have acted with enormous generosity in assisting a little girl desperately in need of help when she was discovered in Nepal.
Miss Shrestha, who is only 12 years old and a national of Nepal, suffers from Turner syndrome, as the right hon. Gentleman said. He has given in great detail its effects on her and the medical treatment that she needs. I accept that she needs to remain in the United Kingdom for private medical treatment, under the supervision of Professor Brook at the Middlesex hospital, where the growth hormone that she needs can be properly monitored and the dose adjusted until she stops growing in a few years' time.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that a dual application was made, but only one aspect was determined; the application for student status, rather than the application to stay for medical treatment. I was, therefore, slightly puzzled when he said that an application had been made for leave to remain further, outside the immigration rules. I wonder whether there is a mix-up between the application for student status, which would grant a much longer-term right to stay, and a formal application outside the immigration rules. It will probably be better for the right hon. Gentleman and me to chat about that after the debate.
One part of the application was, in error, determined separately from the other by a caseworker who made a mistake that should not have been made. A standard letter is sent to people who have come into Britain under one regime and wish to switch to student status in order to stay. There is no leeway under immigration rules for that switch to be made in this country; the person must return to their country of origin and re-apply. I can understand the distress that receiving that letter caused.
I apologise on behalf of the caseworker, who saw the application, on an initial reading, as an application for student switching, came to an erroneous decision and sent the standard letter, which is clearly not meant for children. I take the opportunity to apologise publicly for that error, and let the right hon. Gentleman know that the caseworker concerned is distressed also by the mistake, and is being guided by retraining to ensure that such an error does not occur again.
Sir John Stanley: Would the Minister clarify the position? If I have understood her correctly, is it now open to Mr. and Mrs. Davey to make a new application to the Secretary of State, outside the immigration rules, for Gitanjali to remain in this country for longer than six months?
Angela Eagle: We have still not determined the medical application. The immigration rules in that area are strict, and we may need to examine the process; the right hon. Gentleman has certainly got me thinking about that. Under the way in which the rules work for medical applications, we must have re-confirmation that

311WH
the condition is persisting for the six-month visa to be reissued. There is no reason why that should not happen as soon as we get that confirmation, perhaps in another letter from Dr. Brook.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's more important question is that yes, it is in order for an application outside the immigration rules to be made for Miss Shrestha to be allowed to remain in Britain for a period longer then six months. Unfortunately, we do not have a record of such an application being made, and I have been trying to clarify that point during the debate. I wonder if there has been a misunderstanding over the
312WH
application made for student status, and that it has been assumed that the dual application was an application outside immigration rules. With a little liaison, the right hon. Gentleman and I should be able to sort the matter out. I am happy to confirm that it is possible for such an application to be made outside the immigration rules and looked at on compassionate grounds.
I hope that, with those clarifications, the right hon. Gentleman and I can work together to ensure that, in the future, we can do better than Mr. and Mrs. Davey's experience of the process as he described it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Lager Sales (Refreshment Department)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee how many barrels of Carlsberg Lager and Carlsberg Export Lager were sold by the House of Commons Refreshment Department in 2000. [14139]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  It is difficult to give a precise answer to my hon. Friend's question, as figures are not kept in the form requested. However, I am able to inform him that in the 12-month period from April 2000 until March 2001, the House of Commons Refreshment Department purchased 210 11-gallon barrels of Carlsberg Lager. Barrels are purchased in response to demand, and it is reasonable to assume that the number of barrels sold is similar to the number purchased.

  The Commons Refreshment Department does not sell draught Carlsberg Export Lager.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Walton Group Plc
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money is owed to his Department by Walton Group Plc in respect of Exchange Flags Liverpool; and if he will make a statement. [12620]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department is pursuing a civil claim against the Walton Group plc and Todd and Benn (Contractors) Ltd. to recover the full city grant value of £4,444,782. In addition, it is seeking interest totalling £2,603,062 as of 9 November 2001, and a claim for legal fees, costs and expert fees that are estimated at 8 November 2001 to be £280,000 (inclusive of VAT).

  Yellow School Bus Pilot
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to extend the yellow school bus pilot; and if he will make a statement; [12305]

  (2) what research has been conducted (a) by and (b) on behalf of his Department on the yellow school bus pilot scheme; and when the results are to be published; [12303]

  (3) in which local authorities the yellow school bus pilot scheme is in operation; and if he will make a statement; [12302]
  724W
  (4) how much his Department has spent on the yellow school bus pilot scheme in financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02; and how much expenditure is projected for financial years 2002–03 and 2003-04; [12304]

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the pilot project for the introduction of yellow buses for home-to-school transport. [12317]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department has facilitated the introduction of American-style yellow school buses by agreeing to grant exemption from some of the provisions of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations to enable pilot schemes to operate. The first such scheme is expected to start in Calderdale in the new year. My Department will collect base line data near the start of pilot schemes, and will evaluate them, probably after about a year's operation. The results of the evaluations will be published. The Department has incurred no costs so far other than staff time in considering the case for exemptions from regulations. Future costs will be staff time plus consultancy fees for data collection and evaluation. The level of these costs will depend on the number of pilot schemes, which will be a matter for agreement between local authorities and operators.

  PowerShift Register
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the amended version of the PowerShift Register to incorporate the extension of the LPG conversion grant scheme to include vehicles up to five years old; and if he will make a statement. [12093]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The PowerShift programme is administered on behalf of my Department by the Energy Saving Trust. The updated version of the PowerShift Register, now covering vehicle models up to five years old, is available on the Trust's website at www.est-powershift.org.uk. Grants for these vehicles are now available and the website provides full information on how they can be claimed. Information is also available on the Trust's telephone hotline on 0845 602 1425.

  New Deal for Communities
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for a further round of New Deal for Communities funding to assist the regeneration of post-industrial areas of intense social deprivation. [13673]

  Ms Keeble
  There are no plans for a third round of New Deal for Communities (NDC) funding. The Government are fully committed to the NDC programme and to tackling multiple deprivation in some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country, including many in post-industrial areas, to bridge the gap between these neighbourhoods and the rest of the country.

  The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit is in the process of rolling out a range of programmes that will build on the lessons learned through NDC and strengthen and improve core public services in deprived areas.

  Concessionary Fares (Coaches)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent meetings he has had with representatives of coach operators to discuss proposals for a half-fare concessionary scheme for pensioners on long distance coach journeys; and if he will make a statement. [13684]

  Ms Keeble
  We announced on 5 November our approval in principle of a proposal from the Commission for Integrated Transport under which coach operators would offer half-price fares to older and disabled passengers on long distance scheduled coach services in England. In return operators would—for the first time—receive Fuel Duty Rebate.

  My Department has already had initial discussions with the Confederation of Passenger Transport about this proposal and we look forward to further discussions with them shortly on the details of its implementation.

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 228W, on best value, how many building direct labour organisations transferred to the private sector have been given admitted-body status to the local government pension scheme; and what pension provision will be made for those which will not remain in the LGPS. [13811]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information about the transfer of building direct labour organisations (DLOs) to the private sector is not held centrally. When a local authority function is outsourced and the new contractor chooses not to seek admitted-body status within the local government pension scheme, transferred employees should be offered broadly comparable pension arrangements.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform local government final salary pension schemes. [14696]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are no plans to change the current benefit package provided by the local government pension scheme.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the total cost of local government final salary pensions in the last financial year. [14697]

  Dr. Whitehead: In 2000–01, pensions paid to members of the local government pension scheme totalled £3.5 billion.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the projects which have been considered as potential public-private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public private partnership proposed; and if he will make a statement. [13455]
  726W
  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 607W. There are 16 no cases of potential PPP projects within my department, or the former DETR, not being undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value.

  English Partnerships Land Holdings
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what the scale of English Partnerships land holdings is; and which proportion is earmarked for new housing in(a) Telford and (b) England. [13462]

  Ms Keeble
  In September 2001, English Partnerships owned a total of 5,700 hectares of land in England, 820 hectares (14 per cent.) of which was in Telford.

  Of the overall total, 970 hectares (17 per cent.) is designated for housing in planning terms (ie it either has specific planning consent or is designated as such in the local plan). In Telford, 216 hectares (3.8 per cent.) were designated for housing.

  Planning Applications
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the average period for a planning application from date of application to decision by the local authority over the last five years. [R] [13596]

  Ms Keeble
  The information available from the Department is the percentages of applications for planning permission and related consents which are decided within eight weeks, between eight and 13 weeks and in more than 13 weeks. These are shown in the table.

  Local authority performance: England, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Percentage

  Decisions within eight weeks

  Decisions in eight to 13 weeks

  Decisions exceeding 13 weeks

  1996–97

  64

  21

  15

  1997–98

  62

  22

  16

  1998–99

  62

  21

  17

  1999–2000

  63

  21

  16

  2000–01

  63

  20

  17

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the latest annual figures for the number of planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in England and Wales by(a) region, (b) the number of applications passed, (c) the number sent to appeal and (d) the number of successful appeals; and if he will provide the same figures for the previous 10 years. [R] [13595]

  Ms Keeble
  The information for England is in the table. Figures for Wales are not held centrally on a consistent basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  727W

  Thousands/percentage

  Planning applications1

  Appeals against refusal2

  Government office region

  Decided

  Granted

  Refused

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Percentage of appeals allowed

  1992–93

  North East

  16.7

  15.1

  1.6

  0.4

  0.4

  0.2

  39

  North West

  44.3

  38.6

  5.7

  1.5

  1.4

  0.6

  40

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  35.9

  30.9

  5.0

  1.3

  1.2

  0.4

  31

  East Midlands

  33.4

  29.2

  4.2

  1.2

  1.1

  0.4

  34

  West Midlands

  35.4

  30.2

  5.2

  1.3

  1.1

  0.4

  31

  East of England

  44.5

  37.8

  6.7

  2.1

  1.9

  0.6

  33

  London

  38.6

  31.3

  7.4

  1.9

  1.7

  0.6

  36

  South East

  68.0

  57.0

  10.9

  3.6

  3.2

  1.1

  34

  South West

  48.7

  41.3

  7.3

  2.4

  2.2

  0.7

  32

  England

  365.4

  311.4

  54.0

  15.7

  14.2

  4.8

  34

  1991–92

  North East

  17.3

  15.5

  1.9

  0.5

  0.4

  0.1

  34

  North West

  49.3

  42.0

  7.3

  1.8

  1.6

  0.6

  36

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  40.9

  34.4

  6.5

  1.6

  1.4

  0.4

  30

  East Midlands

  36.7

  31.1

  5.6

  1.5

  1.4

  0.5

  33

  West Midlands

  39.0

  32.6

  6.4

  1.7

  1.4

  0.4

  30

  East of England

  49.7

  40.8

  8.9

  2.7

  2.5

  0.8

  31

  London

  42.5

  33.5

  9.0

  2.2

  2.0

  0.7

  35

  South East

  74.6

  60.5

  14.1

  4.5

  4.0

  1.3

  33

  South West

  54.1

  44.1

  10.0

  3.1

  2.8

  0.9

  32

  England

  404.2

  334.5

  69.7

  19.5

  17.5

  5.7

  32

  1990–91

  North East

  17.5

  15.5

  1.9

  0.5

  0.5

  0.1

  30

  North West

  53.0

  44.2

  8.8

  2.0

  1.8

  0.7

  38

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  42.7

  34.9

  7.8

  1.7

  1.5

  0.5

  32

  East Midlands

  40.1

  33.0

  7.2

  1.7

  1.5

  0.5

  33

  West Midlands

  41.5

  34.0

  7.5

  1.8

  1.6

  0.5

  32

  East of England

  55.3

  43.5

  11.8

  3.3

  2.9

  0.9

  32

  London

  44.8

  34.6

  10.3

  2.5

  2.2

  0.8

  36

  South East

  82.6

  65.0

  17.6

  5.3

  4.6

  1.5

  32

  South West

  60.7

  47.7

  13.1

  3.6

  3.2

  1.0

  32

  England

  438.3

  352.4

  85.9

  22.4

  19.7

  6.5

  33

  1 Section 70 planning applications, i.e. excludes applications for listed building, advertisement and conservation area consents.

  2 Figures relate to the number of appeals against section 70 planning application: refused in the year, not the number of appeals received in the year

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the average period for the consideration of an appeal to a planning application, up to a refusal to grant consent, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 over the last five years. [R] [13593]

  Ms Keeble
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Richard Younger-Ross, dated 14 November 2001:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the average time taken to determine planning appeals.

  The average times, in weeks, are:

  Period

  Written representations

  Hearings

  Inquiries

  1996–97

  22

  41

  45

  1997–98

  19

  35

  41

  1998–99

  16

  23

  32

  1999–2000

  16

  19

  28

  2000–01

  16

  19

  26

  2001–021

  16

  20

  27

  1 April to September

  728W
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average cost is to the Government of hearing planning appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and what is the(a) maximum and (b) minimum cost, for each of the last five years. [R] [13594]

  Ms Keeble
  The Planning Inspectorate has calculated the average unit cost of processing a section 78 inquiry by written representation in each of the last five financial years to be as follows:

  Year

  £

  2000–01

  1,188

  1999–2000

  1,047

  1998–99

  854

  1997–98

  669

  1996–97

  635

  The Inspectorate also effects section 78 appeals through hearings and inquiries. Unit costs for these activities have only been calculated for the previous two financial years, and are as follows.
  729W

  £

  Section 78 hearings

  2000–01

  1,977

  1999–2000

  2,135

  Section 78 inquiries

  2000–01

  5,967

  1999–2000

  5,617

  Current methods of recording inspectorate activity do not provide for the calculation of a minimum and maximum cost in these periods.

  Speed Cameras
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which local authorities do not have(a) speed cameras and (b) plans for their early introduction. [13494]

  Mr. Jamieson: The numbers and locations of speed cameras in police force areas are not held centrally. A funding system is now available nationally that covers the

  Lead agency

  Bid area

  Successful bids

  Bury MBC

  Whitefield

  Chester Community Safety Partnership

  Blacon and Lache

  City of Salford

  Winton and Little Hulton

  Collingwood Housing Association

  Spath Lane and Knowle Park

  Congleton BC

  Alsager

  Derwent and Solway Housing Association

  Workington

  Hyndburn FIRST

  Hyndburn

  Initiative Burnley

  Burnley

  Irwell Valley Housing Association

  Sale West and Manor Avenue Estates

  Lancaster City council

  Morecambe

  Liverpool Housing Trust

  Windmill Hill, Runcorn

  New East Manchester Ltd.

  Ancoats and Miles Platting

  Preston council

  Callon, St. Matthews and Ribbleton

  Riverside Housing Association

  Palacefields, Murdishaw, Halton Brook and Halwood Park. Runcorn

  South Liverpool Housing

  Speke and Garston

  Stockport MBC

  Stockport borough

  Tameside MBC

  Tameside

  Trafford MBC

  Lostock, Sale Moor, Broomwood

  Vale Royal BC

  Vale Royal

  Unsuccessful bids

  Blackpool BCI

  Grange Park, Mereside and George St./Caunce St.

  Bolton Town Centre Ltd.

  Bolton

  Bury MBC

  Huntley/Topping Fold

  Carlisle City council

  Botcherby, Raffles and Petterill Bank

  CDS Housing Association

  Castlefields, Runcorn

  Chester Community Safety Partnership

  Chester

  Copeland BC

  South Whitehaven

  Eden BC

  Eden

  Fylde BC

  St. Annes, Lytham and Kirkham

  Groundwork Blackburn

  Blackburn

  Home Housing Association

  Maryport

  Impact Housing Association

  Workington

  Knowsley MBC

  Kirkby

  Liverpool City council

  North Liverpool

  Macclesfield BC

  Knutsford, Macclesfield and Wilmslow

  Manchester City council

  Manchester

  Manchester Housing

  Cheetham

  Metropolitan borough of Wirral

  Bidston, Hoylake and Rockferry

  Oldham council

  Oldham

  Poynton and Worth parish council

  Poynton

  Riverside Housing Association

  Linacre

  Rochdale MBC

  Rochdale, Middleton, Heywood and Pennines

  South Ribble BC

  South Ribble

  St. Helens BC

  West Sutton, Parr and Hardshaw and Grange Park

  Tranmere Housing Regeneration Partnership—Maritime Housing Association

  Tranmere

  West Lanes DC

  West Lanes

  Wigan MBC

  Wigan and Leigh

  730W
  cost of the purchase and operation of speed cameras and, therefore, removes the key obstacle for camera deployment. It is expected to take around two years for all police force areas wishing to join the scheme to do so.

  Street Warden Funding
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which local authorities in the north-west of England were successful in bidding for Street Warden funding; and which were unsuccessful. [13647]

  Ms Keeble: The Government office for the north-west received 46 Street Warden bids. Nineteen bids, totalling more than £2.9 million and benefiting each of the region's five counties, received approval.

  Organisations other than local authorities, eg housing associations, were eligible to apply under this DTLR-funded pilot scheme. The table shows the successful and unsuccessful bids, the lead agency and the bid area.

  Polling Stations
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will review the advice to returning officers regarding conduct at polling stations to accommodate the beliefs of members of the Assembly of Yahweh. [13522]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Guidance to returning officers on electoral procedures is now a matter for the Electoral Commission. In addition to voting at polling stations any elector may now vote by post and we are inviting local authorities at the May 2002 local elections to pilot such innovations as voting by telephone or on line.

  Homelessness (West Wiltshire)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on homelessness in west Wiltshire. [13680]

  Ms Keeble
  332 households in west Wiltshire were accepted as being homeless in 2000–01. As at 31 March 2001, there were 90 households in temporary accommodation and 15 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to give local people stronger powers to block the inappropriate siting of mobile phone masts. [13862]

  Ms Keeble
  The changes to the planning procedures and guidance for telecommunications mast development which we introduced on 22 August this year greatly strengthen public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below (subject to a process of prior approval by Local Planning Authorities) so that they are the same as for planning applications. This gives local people a much better opportunity to have a say on mast proposals. Local Planning Authorities already have the ability to turn down mast applications where the do not consider amenity aspects have been adequately addressed. Our guidance also advises telecommunications operators to consult local people and Local Planning Authorities before submitting applications for masts of any size.

  Formby Fire Station
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implications of the findings of the National Joint Council on Formby Fire Station for that at Heswall. [13871]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority's application for my right hon. Friend's approval, under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, to change the duty system at Heswall Fire Station remains under consideration. He will not grant approval unless he is satisfied that the Authority has consulted and, on advice from HM Fire Service Inspectorate, that national standards of fire cover will be maintained.
  732W
  The National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades' Scheme of Conditions of Service provides for consideration of proposed changes in duty systems at fire stations. This is a separate procedure, but my right hon. Friend will wish to consider the implications of the recent adjudication in respect of Formby Fire Station.

  Rail Services (North Kent)
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when work will begin to improve the electricity supply to allow 12-car trains to run on the North Kent rail lines. [13982]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack is undertaking a review of Power Supply capability for the Southern Region and is in discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority to address the issue in relation to Mark 1 replacement.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the railway stations in the North Kent lines that need to be lengthened to accommodate 12 car trains; and when this work will be carried out. [13981]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Stations on the North Kent line which would require platform lengthening include Abbey Wood, Deptford, Erith, Gravesend, Greenhithe, Greenwich, Higham, Maze Hill, Northfleet, Plumpstead Rochester, Slade Green, Strood, Swanscombe, Westcombe Park, Woolwich Arsenal, and Woolwich Dockyard. The work to lengthen platforms is primarily dependent on the implementation of Thameslink 2000 and discussions with the incumbent franchisee.

  Motorways
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will arrange for every registered keeper of a motor vehicle to be invited to take part in consultations in respect of future motorway building, improvement and widening schemes. [14045]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are a number of opportunities for registered keepers of vehicles and other road users and interested parties to take part in consultations on motorway building, improvement and widening. Public consultation takes place during studies such as the multi-modal and road-based studies, and prior to a preferred route announcement, and on the publication of draft orders. We do not propose to consult on a national scale with registered keepers of vehicles as this would not be cost effective.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost is of the consultation taking place on the future of the M1 motorway; who is carrying out the consultation process; and what safeguards are in place to ensure that the views of road-users are heard. [14044]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of Multi-Modal Studies and Roads-Based Studies are currently being carried out which include sections of the M1 motorway within their remit. Consultation is undertaken at key stages of the studies to ensure that the views of road users, local public, businesses, environmental interests, transport users, operators and other regional interests are taken into account. The consultation process is overseen by the
  733W
  Study Steering Groups and carried out by the appointed consultants for each study. These arrangements ensure that road users and other interests have the opportunity to express their views.

  Final figures for the costs of consultation will not be available until the studies are completed. However, the average total cost of a study, including the cost of consultation, is approximately £1.5 million.

  Departmental Service Standards
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure that his Department and its agencies give prompt and proper attention to inquiries received from members of the public. [14047]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The centre of the Department and each of its agencies have set targets for each of the "Six Service Standards for Central Government". Performance against these targets is monitored annually and published in a Cabinet Office report (copies are available in the Libraries of the House).

  Additionally, a quarterly report is presented to the Board of the Department detailing performance in handling correspondence.

  Travellers
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the results of research by Heriot-Watt University into the effectiveness of the Government office guidance on managing unauthorised camping by travellers; and when he will publish revised guidance. [13864]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department published a summary of the research findings on 2 November. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House. We plan to publish a revision of the current Good Practice Guide on Managing Unauthorised Camping by Gypsies and Travellers early next year.

  Overcrowding (Trains)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the safety risks posed by overcrowding on trains. [13917]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Department's advisers on railways safety matters, have advised that all rolling stock is designed to operate safely even when fully loaded, and passenger loading does not affect the train's stopping performance or its structural integrity.

  Train Crime
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many offences were recorded on trains from Preston to Blackpool in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how many of those were alcohol related. [13919]
  734W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport Police, who are responsible for policing the railways, have provided me with the following figures. In the period between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, a total of 354 offences were recorded on the railway routes between Preston and Blackpool and at least 19 of these were alcohol related. These figures include offences committed on the trains and at the stations.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the need to control drunkenness on trains. [13918]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We recognise the effect that anti-social behaviour, including drunkenness, can have on both train staff and other passengers' perceptions of their personal security. We are working with transport operators, local authorities, the police and others to improve personal security on transport, through such means as publishing good practice guidance and improving the ability of the British Transport Police (BTP) and train operators to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour. The BTP work closely with the train operators to identify hot spots of disorder. If necessary measures such as increased patrolling and special operations will be undertaken to control the problem.

  Road Clearance
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce a mandatory requirement for highway authorities to publish a winter plan listing the roads it intends to keep clear of ice and snow. [13992]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Code of Practice for Maintenance Management "Delivering Best Practice in Highway Maintenance" published on 10 July already strongly recommends that highway authorities should publish a winter service operational plan after consultation with users and key stakeholders.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether highway authorities in England and Wales will continue to hold responsibility for keeping roads safe in winter through pre-salting and snow clearance. [13995]

  Mr. Spellar
  The House of Lords judgment last year in the case of Goods v. East Sussex was that there was no duty on local highway authorities under the Highways Act 1980 to prevent ice from forming on highways. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend highway authorities in England to implement winter service provisions on their roads in accordance with the Code of Practice for Maintenance Management "Delivering Best Practice in Highway Maintenance" published on 10 July.

  Guidance to highway authorities in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will issue guidance to highway authorities in England and Wales on the importance of pre-salting roads in winter. [13991]
  735W
  Mr. Spellar
  Guidance on pre-salting roads in winter is contained in the Code of Practice for Maintenance Management "Delivering Best Practice in Highway Maintenance" published on 10 July.

  Guidance to highway authorities in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with highway authorities to take reasonable steps to pre-salt roads in winter and clear snow. [13993]

  Mr. Spellar
  Highway authorities throughout the United Kingdom participated in producing the guidance on winter service contained in the Code of Practice for Maintenance Management "Delivering Best Practice in Highway Maintenance" published on 10 July.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when Ernst and Young LLP was approached about the possibility of giving advice on Railtrack; [13996]

  (2) if he will list the (a) discussions and (b) meetings between Ernst and Young LLP and his Department on the rail industry prior to 24 August; [13990]

  (3) what terms of reference were given to Ernst and Young LLP on their engagement by his Department to advise on possible options for Railtrack. [13997]

  Mr. Spellar
  The possibility of Ernst and Young LLP giving advice on Railtrack was first discussed at a meeting on 23 August. They were appointed on 24 August. On engagement, their remit was to provide advice on the general process of administration; and accountancy advice on possible options for Railtrack.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will deposit in the Library a list of all the stations owned by Railtrack and their estimated value. [14783]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not hold this information.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he ordered the drafting of legislation(a) prior to and (b) following his meeting with the Rail Regulator on 5 October to remove the power from the Regulator to hold an interim financial review. [14785]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of internal communications are exempt from disclosure under section 2 of Part II of the code of practice on access to government information.

  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when, after 1 August, his Department received advice from the Treasury that it was unlikely that additional public funding for Railtrack would be approved. [13471]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 13 November 2001, Official Report, columns 723–35.
  736W

  No-fly Zones
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many instances there have been in each year since 1991 of (i) commercial and (ii) privately operated aircraft accidentally breaching no-fly zones over(a) nuclear power plants, (b) nuclear reprocessing plants, (c) nuclear fuel production plants, (d) uranium enrichment plants and (e) military nuclear plants. [14262]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1991, there have been four reported breaches of the restricted airspace around military nuclear plants (one in each of 1993, 1995, 1996 and 2000). There have been also two reported breaches of the restrictions around Sellafield (one in 1993 and 1999), which is both a nuclear reprocessing and fuel production plant.

  Car Registration Revenue
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much has been raised in each year since 1998 from the first licence fee payable at the first registration of a new car. [14014]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The fee for the first registration of vehicles in the UK was introduced on 1 April 1998. The amounts raised each year since 1998 are £67,654k, £68,573k and 70,503k respectively.

  Fire Services (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will call for a report from Her Majesty's Fire Services Inspectorate on management practices in the Merseyside Fire Authority and their impact on the delivery of fire services. [14274]

  Dr. Whitehead
  HM Fire Service Inspectorate has recently conducted an inspection of the Merseyside Fire Service. The report will be published in due course.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recommendations in the National Joint Council report on the staffing arrangements proposals put forward by Merseyside Fire Authority. [14273]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades' Scheme of Conditions of Service provides for consideration of proposed changes in duty systems at fire stations. This is a separate procedure to the requirements of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 in respect of variations to a fire authority's establishment. My right hon. Friend will, however, wish to consider the implications of the recent adjudication in respect of Formby Fire Station.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the report he received from the Strategic Rail Authority on the proposed lorries-on-trains freight railway put forward by Central Railway plc. [14707]
  737W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 200W.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the events of 11 September on insurance premiums to be paid by local authorities. [13898]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: We are working with local government in assessing all new and increasing pressures on local authorities as part of SR2002. The LGA has identified insurance premiums as an area which it wants, to look at during the review.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if London Underground is a member of the COMET international metro benchmarking network; and what are the rules under which information the network collects can be published. [14598]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: I understand that London Underground is a member of the COMET international metro benchmarking network. The rules under which it collects and publishes information are a matter for COMET.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the average rate of staff absenteeism among London Underground(a) drivers and (b) station staff in each year from 1991. [14605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: London Underground has provided the following information showing the percentage absenteeism rate:

  Calendar year

  Train staff1

  Station staff

  1991

  5.39

  10.13

  1992

  5.09

  7.94

  1993

  6.60

  7.23

  1994

  5.61

  6.36

  1995

  5.41

  7.16

  1996

  5.16

  6.15

  1997

  5.64

  6.71

  1998

  5.22

  6.43

  1999

  5.83

  6.39

  2000

  7.23

  7.17

  1 Includes guards

  Bus Services
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the next issue of the Bus Quality Indicators Bulletin will be published. [14547]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: My Department intends to publish the next issue of the Bus Quality Indicators Bulletin in January 2002.

  Departmental Public Relations
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what 738W
  are the terms of the brief given to the Finsbury Public Relations firm in relation to his Department's relations with the City; [14460]

  (2) when he decided to employ Roland Rudd of Finsbury Public Relations to advise on his Department's relations with the City; [14463]

  (3) what the expected monthly cost is to his Department of the cost of employing Finsbury Public Relations. [14459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Finsbury Public Relations are not employed by DTLR.

  Council Tenants (Cash Incentive Scheme)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council tenants in England have taken advantage of cash incentive scheme payments in order to buy a home in the private sector in 2000–01; what restrictions there are on the amount of grant that may be made available in(a) Poole and (b) London and the South East; and what the maximum amount of grant allowed is, as a proportion of average house prices in (a) and (b). [14375]

  Ms Keeble
  827 Cash Incentive Scheme grants have been made to council tenants in England in 2000-01 to buy their own home.

  The maximum grant in Poole is £10,000 which equates to around 7 per cent. of average house prices in the area.

  The maximum grant payable in London and the south east is 80 per cent. of the average Right to Buy Discount in the authority in question. The limit on the overall RTB discount in those regions is £38,000. 80 per cent. of the £38.000 is £30,400. This equates to around 20 per cent. of average house prices in London and the south east.

  Planning Guidance (Flooding)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the Environment Agency regarding planning policy guidance on building in areas subject to flooding. [14839]

  Ms Keeble
  The Chairman and Chief Executive of the Environment Agency have had three recent meetings with Ministers in this Department that included discussion of a range of issues, including planning and flooding.

  In addition, officials meet and discuss regularly with their colleagues in the Environment Agency the implementation and effectiveness of the planning policy guidance on "Development and flood risk" published in July 2001.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria he uses to determine the calling in of planning applications, with specific reference to development in the flood plains. [14838]

  Ms Keeble
  My right hon. Friend's policy on calling in planning applications remains as stated by the then Minister for Planning on 16 June 1999,Official Report, column 138W. His policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved.
  739W
  With specific reference to development on flood plains, such cases could include, for example, those which, in his opinion:
  significantly conflict with national policies as expressed in Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 on "Development and flood risk";
  could have significant effects on flooding beyond their immediate locality; or
  give rise to substantial regional or national controversy.

  Each case will continue to be treated on its merits. However, the maintenance by the Environment Agency of an objection on a flood-risk ground to significant development proposals in flood plains would clearly influence the decision whether or not to call in an application. Call-in would be more likely if there was any evidence that the Agency's objection was likely to be over-ruled by the local planning authority without sufficient counter-balancing reasons having been taken into account.

  Ebley Wharf
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the reasons for the decision not to call in the planning application of Ebley Wharf in Stroud. [14840]

  Ms Keeble
  No. The Government's policy is not to give reasons for decisions in cases where the Secretary of State has declined to intervene in particular planning applications.

  Social Housing Provision
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what level of social housing provision there was in each of the last 10 years. [14837]

  Ms Keeble
  Estimates of the stock of social housing in England in the latest 10 years for which data are available are given in the table. Social dwellings include houses and flats owned by registered social landlords and by council.

  Numbers of social dwellings

  Thousand

  Year

  Social dwellings

  1 April 1991

  4,507

  1 April 1992

  4,490

  1 April 1993

  4,474

  1 April 1994

  4,445

  1 April 1995

  4,421

  1 April 1996

  4,412

  1 April 1997

  4,390

  1 April 1998

  4,358

  1 April 1999

  4,340

  1 April 2000

  4,290

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the minutes of his meeting with the Rail Regulator on 5 October. [14784]
  740W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of internal communications are exempt from disclosure under section 2 of Part II of the code of practice on access to government information.

  Electoral Commission
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made on the transfer of the functions of the Local Government Commission for England to the Electoral Commission; and if he will make a statement.[15463]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today laid a draft of an Order which, subject to parliamentary approval, I intend to make under section 18 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act to provide for the transfer of functions of the Local Government Commission for England, together with the associated functions of the Secretary of State on electoral arrangements, to the Electoral Commission with effect from 1 April 2002. Our aim is to secure a well, planned transfer which avoids any disruption to the current programme of periodic electoral reviews being undertaken by the LGC or to the work programme of the Electoral Commission.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Spending
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers., (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by his Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if he will make a statement. [6938]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am therefore unable to provide a substantive answer under the terms of exemption 9 (voluminous and vexatious requests) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  However, a breakdown of the Ministry of Defence's public relations' expenditure is published in the annual Departmental Performance Report, broken down into categories of RN, Army, RAF and civilian recruitment, PR, marketing and business support services, Chief of PR, sales promotion, scholarships and National Employers' Liaison Committee.

  The Government are committed to using only whatever channel is judged to be the most cost-effective way to deliver the publicity necessary to support the implementation of policy. Paid advertising is resorted to only after careful consideration of the cost benefits.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make statement on the quinquennial review of Defence Medical Services. [13701]
  741W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1224W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). A quinquennial review of the Defence Medical Agencies and some other aspects of defence medical arrangements is currently under way. The first phase of the review has been completed and a summary has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Brigadier Tim Taylor's report on Deployable Medical Capability will be complete; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [13702]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are currently, as part of our normal routine, undertaking work to develop options on how to provide and deliver an effective and efficient future medical capability required to deploy in support of operations. A report on this work will be produced for internal planning purposes during autumn next year.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the report, "Defence Medical Services, Strategy for the Future", in the Library. [13703]

  Dr. Moonie
  The work undertaken, in the wake of the Strategic Defence Review, on a strategy for resolving problems facing the Defence Medical Services, constitutes internal discussion and advice and is withheld from publication under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. A summary of the findings entitled "The Defence Medical Services—A Strategy for the Future" was placed in the Library of the House in December 1998.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the strategic role of Gibraltar. [14293]

  Mr. Ingram
  Gibraltar has been and continues to be an important overseas base for the British Armed Forces, and contains valuable support, logistic, communications and training facilities.

  Nuclear Bunker, Cotswolds
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with English Heritage over conferring listed status to the former Government' s nuclear control and operations bunker in the Cotswolds. [14681]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he made of the effect of the removal of the cannon from the Eurofighter on the RAF's future capability to deter civilian aircraft from hazardous flight paths; and if he will make a statement. [14821]

  Mr. Ingram
  Eurofighter will be equipped with highly capable air-to-air missiles. We do not consider that the absence of a cannon from Eurofighter will have any material effect on the ability of the RAF to deter civilian aircraft from hazardous flight paths.
  742W

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military airlift provision is directed to delivering aid to Afghanistan. [14624]

  Mr. Ingram
  Three coalition C-17 aircraft are directed to delivering aid to Afghanistan. They have been flying nightly since the start of the campaign and, so far, have delivered approximately 1.3 million humanitarian daily rations.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide search and rescue services through a private finance initiative when the helicopters used in SAR operations are replaced. [14623]

  Mr. Ingram
  The existing Sea King fleet (which includes the Search and Rescue aircraft) is due to be replaced in 2010–15. A full range of potential strategies are being evaluated to meet the search and rescue requirement, one of which is the potential for Public-Private Partnership/Private Finance Initiative.

  Arms Trafficking
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the annual report on the implementation of the EU joint action, of 17 December 1998, on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons (199/34/CFSP) and the EU programme on illicit trafficking in conventional arms of June 1997. [14259]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government had an opportunity to comment on the draft of the annual report on the implementation of the EU joint action, of 17 December 1998, on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons (1999/34/CFSP) and the EU programme on illicit trafficking in conventional arms of June 1997, as did all other EU member states. The report is entirely consistent with the Government's policy on Small Arms and Light Weapons. It provides a detailed account of action taken by EU member states at the national level and in international forums to combat the dangerous proliferation of small arms. The report also sets out priorities for a more systematic approach to EU assistance in this crucial area of work. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office submitted the report for parliamentary scrutiny on 14 June.

  The Government are committed to tackling the scourge of small arms proliferation. The need to eradicate the illicit trade in small arms has a particular urgency in the context of the war against terrorism. The annual report predates the first ever UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, held in New York in July 2001. The Conference adopted a Programme of Action which commits States politically to put in place export control mechanisms, measures to ensure small arms traceability and to control brokers, and to destroy surplus weapons. There will be a Review Conference in 2006. It is vital that countries sustain the political momentum built up at the Conference to

  743W
  implement the programme of Action. The UK will continue to co-operate with our EU partners, within the framework of the EU's Joint Action on Small Arms and the EU Programme on Illicit Trafficking, to address these issues as a matter of priority.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe about terrorist acts against landowners. [13400]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly raise our concerns with the Government of Zimbabwe on continuing rural violence and the breakdown in the rule of law. At Abuja on 6 September, the Government of Zimbabwe made a commitment to end occupations of farm land and to remove illegal occupiers. My noble Friend Baroness Amos accompanied Commonwealth partners to Zimbabwe on 25–26 October, to assess implementation of the Abuja Agreement and to urge the Government to abide by their commitments.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of sanctions which could be imposed by(a) the UK and (b)the Commonwealth against the Zimbabwe Government. [13398]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK introduced a national arms embargo on Zimbabwe in May 2000. The UK is working closely with EU partners on Zimbabwe. At the 29 October General Affairs Council, EU Ministers decided to open Article 96 consultations with the Government of Zimbabwe. This gives Zimbabwe 60 days to address EU concerns. Any action by the Commonwealth is a matter for the Commonwealth as a whole.

  International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has given to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague in connection with the recent trials of Bosnian Serbs. [13401]

  Peter Hain
  The Government are committed to assisting the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in its aim of bringing justice and stability to the peoples of the region. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office contributes through the United Nations to the running expenses of the Tribunal and, together with other Government Departments, provides practical assistance in personnel and expertise. Where we provide material or witnesses in connection with a trial, this is done in accordance with established standards and practices agreed between the Government and the Tribunal.

  The Government provide assistance to the Tribunal in all cases, regardless of the ethnicity of the accused.

  Israel (British-made Military Components)
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether British-made components are being used in the Israeli-occupied territories by the Israeli Defence Force on(a) Apache helicopters, (b) Merkava tanks, (c) Huey helicopters, (d) armoured personnel carriers and (e) F16 jets; and if he will make a statement. [13669]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have no evidence that equipment or components manufactured in the UK and licensed for export by this Government have been used by Israeli forces against civilians in the occupied territories during the recent and continuing violence. We would be concerned if such evidence came to light.

  We look at all export licence applications to Israel on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated National and EU criteria, taking careful account in each case of the nature of the equipment and the proposed end-use and end-user in light of the circumstance prevailing at the time. This means inter alia we will not issue licences where there is a clear risk that the equipment might be used in internal repression, international aggression, adversely affect regional stability or prolong internal conflict. We are keeping the situation under close review.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the system for monitoring the end-use of British-made military components and equipment exported to Israel. [13668]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are keeping the situation under close review. We have no evidence that equipment manufactured in the UK and licensed for export by this Government has been used by Israeli forces against civilians in the occupied territories during the recent and continuing violence. We would be concerned if such evidence came to light.

  We use information supplied by a number of sources to check that British equipment is not being used against Palestinians in the occupied territories, including information gathered by our embassy and non-Governmental organisations, among others. We have received an assurance from the Israeli Government that no UK manufactured equipment or components are used against Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

  Overseas Territories (Reciprocal Rights)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which overseas territories have agreed to offer reciprocal rights for UK citizens to work and reside in UK territories. [13915]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None. The grant of British citizenship to British Dependent Territories citizens from qualifying Territories who do not already enjoy it, will be on a non-reciprocal basis.

  Overseas Prisoner Repatriated
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK nationals detained in overseas prisons have been repatriated to the UK in the last 12 months. [13928]
  745W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since 1 November 2000, 38 British nationals detained in prisons overseas have been repatriated to the United Kingdom.

  Afghanistan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to provide economic compensation to surviving family members of non-combatant civilians killed by accident by allied munitions used in the conflict in Afghanistan. [14260]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  UK military operations are conducted in accordance with international law. Compensation for any casualties as a result of action undertaken in accordance with those requirements would be inappropriate.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resolution he proposed on Afghanistan at the session of the UN Security Council on Tuesday 13 November. [14858]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 13 November, a UK/French draft Security Council resolution on the future of Afghanistan was circulated among Security Council members. The draft will be discussed in informal consultations of the Security Council today. We hope the resolution will be adopted by the Security Council as soon as possible. A copy of the agreed resolution will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent decision by the EU to lift the arms embargo on the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. [14415]

  Peter Hain
  The EU (Common Position 96/746/CFSP) imposed an embargo on the export of arms to Afghanistan. In December 2000, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1333, which imposed a mandatory arms embargo only on the territory of Afghanistan under Taliban control. On 5 November the EU embargo was brought into line with the mandatory UN embargo (Common Position 2001/771/CFSP).

  Vietnam
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Miss Truong Vy Pham, Hanoi (Ref. P402281). [13904]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not our policy to comment on individual visa cases in a public forum. 1 will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Biological Weapons Convention
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what his Department's policy is on the establishment of national oversight mechanisms for(a) security and (b) genetic engineering of pathogenic organisms; [13947]

  (2) what plans he has with regard to the development of a code of ethical conduct for bioscientists; [13946]

  (3) what United Nations procedures exist for investigating (a) suspicious outbreaks and (b) allegations of biological weapons use; [13949]
  746W
  (4) what plans he has for the promotion of responsible conduct in the (a) study, (b) use, (c) modification and (d) shipment of pathogenic organisms; [13953]

  (5) what proposals his Department has (a) to improve international disease control and (b) to enhance mechanisms for sending expert response teams to cope with outbreaks. [13948]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  These are among a number of new ideas intended to complement the implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). We have been discussing these and other options with other States Parties since the end of the negotiations on a BWC Protocol in August. All are at an early stage of development. We expect them to be further discussed at the 5th Review Conference of the BWC in Geneva (19 November to 7 December). We welcome proposals that have been made for practical and effective measures to meet the biological weapons threat. We hope that these can be agreed at the Conference.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with its United States counterparts with regard to the United States' recent proposals to strengthen the biological and toxic weapons convention. [13945]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are in frequent contact with the United States, and other States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, on our respective ideas for strengthening the Convention. The Foreign Secretary discussed the subject with the US Secretary of State during his visit to Washington in October.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy at the forthcoming biological and toxic weapons convention Review Conference; [13951]

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that international progress towards the strengthening of the biological and toxic weapons convention is sustained following the BTWC Review Conference. [13950]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 668W.

  Government Wine Cellar
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the number of bottles of(a) wine and (b) other alcoholic beverages contained within the Government wine cellar, managed by his Department; what his estimate is of the value of the Government wine cellar; and if he will make a statement. [13517]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government Wine Cellar contains a mixture of fine wines, reception or drinking wines and spirits and liqueurs. Stock levels vary according to the number of Government functions at any given time. Generally the cellar contains approximately 37,000 bottles, the majority of which are wine. The value of the stock is subjective, depending on the vagaries on the wine
  747W
  market, and bears no relation to the purchase costs. The current value is estimated to be in the region of £1.5 million.

SCOTLAND

  Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the most recent projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the completion of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick airport is. [9200]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]:NATS staff will transfer from the existing centre at Prestwick to the new centre when it is completed. It is not anticipated that any new jobs will be created by the completion of the project. There will be some additional short-term employment opportunities during the construction and commissioning phase.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the projected capital cost of the proposed new air traffic control centre at Prestwick airport is; and how much of this budget had been spent as at 16 October.[9201]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: Although construction of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick is being deferred, contracts for the design of the building and initial site works are in progress and will be completed. The value of these contracts is a commercial matter between NATS and the contractors. Construction of the building and the design and installation of equipment systems will be subject to a competitive procurement process, which will determine the total costs of the new centre.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance the Government allocated for the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick airport(a) before and (b) following the confirmation of a delay. [11243]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have not made any allocation of financial assistance for the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent assessment the Government have made of the delay in building the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick on(a) Ayrshire's economy and (b) local unemployment. [11247]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Recent changes to airline operations and consequent reductions in air traffic has led to temporary deferral of work to create the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick. Air traffic control services for Scottish and North Atlantic airspace will continue to be provided by NATS staff from the existing centre at Prestwick. The main effect on the local economy of deferring work on the new centre will be to delay creation of short-term employment opportunities on the construction and commissioning of the new centre. The Government remain closely in touch with the industry with a view to securing the shortest possible delay.
  748W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings she has had with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions regarding the delay in building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick. [11244]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on a wide range of transport issues which affect Scotland, including matters relating to the new air traffic centre at Prestwick.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office will shortly meet the Minister for Transport to discuss a number of items including the new NATS centre at Prestwick.

  Scottish Executive
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) order in Council. [13818]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Any transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive takes place following agreement between the Administrations. If conferred by primary legislation, by convention the Scottish Executive first seeks the approval of the Scottish Parliament. If by secondary legislation, the order follows the procedures set out in the Scotland Act, such orders require approval by both Houses of Parliament and also the Scottish Parliament.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Al-Jazeera
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements are in place for the al-Jazeera television station to be broadcast in this country with English subtitles; and if she will make a statement. [12257]

  Tessa Jowell
  Al-Jazeera is an Arabic language channel aimed at Arab-speaking communities across a wide geographic area. English subtitling would be an editorial matter for the channel to consider.

  Lottery Grants (Morley and Rothwell)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for lottery grants have been made, in each year since 1997, by organisations and individuals based in Morley and Rothwell constituency. [14337]

  Mr. Caborn
  Comprehensive information on applications for lottery grants is not centrally held at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Football Dispute
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with(a) the Premier League and (b) the Professional Footballers

  749W
  Association regarding the dispute between the two bodies; what role her Department can play in resolving the dispute; and if she will make a statement. [14292]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have discussed this issue with the Premier League or the Professional Footballers Association (PFA). Although the Government hope that a satisfactory settlement may be reached without the need for industrial action, the dispute must be resolved through a free process of negotiation. My Department has no plans to intervene.

  Football Clubs (Financial Support)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many football clubs have received financial support from Sport UK in the last 12 months. [14290]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. UK Sport does not provide funding for football. UK Sport's support for training, competition and coaching facilities for elite sports people is, in the main, provided to UK-wide governing bodies. In view of the administrative structure of football in the UK, applications for lottery funding from the sport's clubs and governing bodies are made to Sport England, or to its equivalents in the other home nations.

  Elite Sports Funding Review
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to implement the findings of the Cunningham report; and if she will make a statement. [14286]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Elite Sports Funding Review chaired by Dr. Cunningham identified over 40 recommendations, many of which are for the Sports Councils and National Governing Bodies of sport to take forward. The current position of the Sports Councils in respect of the recommendations was presented at the recent Sports Cabinet meeting. They have accepted and are implementing the overwhelming majority of the recommendations. The Government will provide their detailed response to the report in due course.

  Sport England
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the funding and role for Sport England within the regions. [14846]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England's future role in the regions, which will include arrangements for the distributions of funding, is one of the issues being considered in the current quinquennial review of Sport England.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what resources were available to Sport England from(a) the Exchequer and (b) the lottery in each region in each of the last two years. [14851]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England's allocation of grant in aid for 2000-01 was £38 million and for 2001–02 is £43.2 million. The budget for each region is set out in the table.
  750W

  £000

  Region

  2000–01

  2001–02

  North East

  886

  1,169

  Yorkshire

  1,105

  1,528

  East Midlands

  1,096

  1,340

  East

  1,180

  1,314

  London

  1,301

  1,694

  South East

  2,014

  2,215

  South West

  1,139

  1,413

  West Midlands

  1,161

  1,537

  North West

  1,365

  1,801

  Sport England's income from the National Lottery for 2000–01 was £223.5 million and the forecast income for 2001–02 is £214,233 million. The total amounts awarded in each region are set out in the table:

  £000

  Region

  2000–01

  2001–021

  North East

  11,853

  5,573

  Yorkshire

  30,048

  3,920

  East Midlands

  21,606

  12,484

  East

  9,750

  6,696

  London

  16,880

  16,056

  South East

  28,227

  7,962

  South West

  18,561

  8,658

  West Midlands

  14,612

  3,132

  North West

  21,168

  7,093

  1 At November 2001

  Sports Schools and Colleges
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in the development of specialist sports schools and colleges; and what help it is giving to the development of the Sports Co-ordinator Programme. [14850]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department works in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) on aspects of the development of Specialist Sports Colleges. The Department sits on the management board of the School Sport Co-ordinator programme which is run by our sponsored body, Sport England.

  Sports (Community Development)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she plans to take and with which other Government Departments she is co-operating in order to enhance community development in relation to sport. [14848]

  Mr. Caborn
  I chair monthly meetings bringing together Ministerial colleagues from the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health with Sport England to make sure that the potential of sport to drive forward the wider Government agenda is realised. My officials and I are working closely with our colleagues in DLTR on sports planning and regeneration issues, most notably the redrafting of PPG 17, which will be the strengthened framework in which the provision of sports facilities will be delivered. Because we recognise the potential of sport as a means of improving health, diverting young people from crime, drugs and antisocial behaviour and engaging disaffected learners in education and employment we are working jointly with the
  751W
  Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office to ensure that people of all ages in our communities benefit fully from sport development opportunities and initiatives.

  Sports (Participation)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how her Department measures participation rates in sport; and what information she collates on(a) an age related and (b) aregional basis. [14847]

  Mr. Caborn
  Adult (aged 16+) rates of sports participation are measured through the General Household Survey (GHS), a continuous survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics across Great Britain. Questions relating to sport are included on the survey once every three years, the last being 1996 and the next being due 2002 (in 1999, the GHS was not carried out).

  Sport England has also measured participation rates for adults with disabilities (carried out in 2000–01) and for people from Black and Ethnic minority communities (carried out in 1999) through specially commissioned large-scale surveys using the same methodology and questions used in the GHS.

  Ages of participants can be analysed in a variety of ways, as respondents are asked their actual age. Overall participation rates can also be reported at a regional level.

  Participation by young people is measured in. Sport England's Survey of Young People which has now been carried out twice (1994 and 1999). The survey, which in 1999 was carried out by MORI on behalf of Sport England, is school based and involves a representative sample of around 4,000 young people aged six to 16 across England. This survey also enables analysis by age. Sport England has also undertaken a large scale survey of young people with disabilities using the same sports participation questions as in the wider 1999 survey (carried out in 2000).

  Sports (Co-ordination)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had to ensure that there is greater co-ordination within different sports at(a) international, (b) national, (c) regional and (d) local levels. [14849]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions to ensure greater co-ordination within different sports at the various levels. However, she is aware that the Sports Councils work closely with the national governing bodies of sport continually to examine improved methods of co-ordination across all sports and all levels.

  Sports (Rural Regeneration)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the role of sport in regeneration, with specific reference to rural areas. [14845]
  752W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government fully recognise the important role that sport can play in the regeneration of both urban and rural areas and in addressing a whole range of social issues such as better health, reduced crime and social inclusion. Both the report of Policy Action Team 10 and the Government's Plan for Sport highlight how sport can be used to tackle neighbourhood renewal, social exclusion and community development. Among the initiatives included in the plan are the creation of the Community Sport Alliance which brings together key stakeholders of all levels to identify the key challenges facing sport in the community; the promotion of sport in regional policy making through contributions to the work of regional agencies such as the Regional Cultural Consortiums; and ensuring that equity principles are at the heart of all the Government's and Sport England's policies for the promotion and development of sport. In particular the Policy Directions issued to Sport England in respect of the distribution of the Lottery Sports Fund require it, in deciding applications for funding, to have regard to the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation, the need to promote access to sport for people from all sections of society and the need to further the objectives of sustainable development taking into account social and community progress and employment opportunities created by sports projects. Sport England has also introduced a number of other specific initiatives aimed at the regeneration of deprived areas including Sport Action Zones, one of which is Cornwall, its Priority Areas Initiative and the establishment of a Regeneration Policy Advisory Group.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the Minister for Sport's answer to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on 5 November 2001,Official Report,column 4, what was the basis of the analysis her Department used for the calculation of numbers of playing fields disposed of during the period 1992 to 1997. [14844]

  Mr. Caborn
  Public concern about the loss of school playing fields led directly to the introduction in October 1998 of section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Before section 77 was introduced, only grant-maintained schools were required to seek consent from the Secretary of State before selling land, including areas of their playing fields. Local authorities and other schools that owned their own playing fields were free to sell without restriction. The then Department for Education and Employment estimated that an average of 40 playing fields a month were sold in this way before October 1998. Their estimate is based on the number of playing field disposals at grant-maintained schools between April 1996, when the previous Government further encouraged the disposal of playing fields by relaxing the Local Authority Capital Finance Regulations which governed the use of sale proceeds, and 1 October 1998, when section 77 took effect. During this 30-month period, some 64 grant-maintained schools were given approval to dispose of areas of playing field, which is an average of over two a month. Using the proportion of grant-maintained schools at that time compared with the number of other schools, the Department for Education and Skills estimate the total number of playing field disposals each month to have been around 40.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fireworks
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to heighten public awareness of(a) the dangers of fireworks and (b) the effects of fireworks on animals; [9240]

  (2) what plans she has to restrict the decibel level of fireworks; [9242]

  (3) what plans she has to review firework legislation; and if she will make a statement; [9243]

  (4) what control the Government have over fireworks bought on the internet; and if she will make a statement; [9244]

  (5) what plans she has to restrict the use of fireworks to a limited time period. [9241]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]The Department has recently launched this year's fireworks safety campaign informing the public of the dangers posed by fireworks. The theme of this year's campaign, is to urge children and young people to take care when using or being near fireworks. As part of the campaign, around 2,000 information packs to help mount local safety campaigns have been distributed to trading standards, fire brigades, health promotion units, environmental health officers and police forces. In addition over 25,000 special information packs have been distributed for use in schools.

  The public is warned of the effects of fireworks on animals through the fireworks code, which advises pet owners to keep pets indoors. Each pack of fireworks on sale contains a copy of the code.

  Fireworks on sale in the United Kingdom are required under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 to adhere to British Standards BS 7114 which restrict the size and weight of fireworks. I have no plans to change this at present, although we are involved in the proposed European Standard which is likely to specify sound levels for certain fireworks.

  We have no plans to restrict the use of fireworks to a limited time period. The working of regulations safeguards is kept under regular review.

  United Kingdom based firework companies selling over the internet are subject to the provisions of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997.

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to reduce accidents from fireworks. [10473]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The comprehensive measures introduced under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 are again being supplemented by a robust, targeted firework safety campaign. The measures include controls on the types and size of fireworks which can be sold to the public, and prohibiting sales to those under 18 years of age.

  The emphasis of this year's campaign, is that children and young people should take care when using or being near fireworks. As part of the campaign, around 2,000 information packs to help mount local safety campaigns
  754W
  have been distributed to trading standards, fire brigades, health promotion units, environmental health officers and police forces. In addition over 25,000 special information packs have been distributed for use in schools.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many reported incidents involving injuries with fireworks in each of the last five years have involved(a) minors and (b) adults as the alleged perpetrators of the incidents in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK; [13164]

  (2) how many reported incidents involving injuries with fireworks in each of the last five years have involved (a) minors and (b) adults as victims of the incidents in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK.

  [13165]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]The following data were collected from Accident and Emergency Departments in Great Britain over the firework season. Data are collected separately by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. These figures are recorded cases of accidental injury involving fireworks. We have no statistics relating to alleged perpetrators of incidents.

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  Year

  Under 18

  Over 18

  Under 18

  Over 18

  2000

  49

  19

  508

  396

  1999

  45

  37

  549

  425

  1998

  47

  13

  414

  353

  1997

  35

  22

  439

  412

  1996

  61

  24

  647

  501

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further plans she has to regulate the sale and use of fireworks for purposes other than organised displays. [13984]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have no plans further to regulate the sale and use of fireworks.

  Coal
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the circumstances in which she will accept continued state aid from the EU for the UK coal industry. [10376]

  Mr. Wilson
  The EU must approve state aid paid by the Government to the UK coal industry, but it does not itself pay such aid.

  The DTI is currently reviewing the rationale for the business support it gives, and so it would be premature to give a definitive view on the circumstances in which we would continue to subsidise the UK coal industry. However, as a general principle we would need to be convinced that the benefits of continued subsidy (for example in energy supply, economic or social terms) would outweigh the costs of that subsidy.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to support the competitiveness of British manufacturing since 7 June. [10991]
  755W
  Mr. Wilson
  We are strengthening assistance to manufacturing industry through our increased support for the regional development agencies to raise innovation, enterprise and skills. We are taking forward the announced initiative to provide a manufacturing advisory service, based on provision of services on a regional basis. We are also introducing measures to help workers develop their skills and increase their prospects of finding new, better employment if they lose their jobs. These and other issues will be discussed at the manufacturing summit in Birmingham on 5 December.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures have been undertaken by her Department since 1997 to assist British manufacturing. [13502]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]Since 1997 we have established a favourable macro-economic framework to ensure the future competitiveness of British manufacturing. We have built on this support with policies to foster productivity and help firms innovate and grow. We have established regional development agencies to raise innovation, enterprise and skills in every region. We are improving university and industry links to bring new products and processes in key industrial sectors to market. We are helping established industries to modernise through adopting best practice in production and supply chain management. We have strengthened the knowledge base for manufacturing through increased investment in the science infrastructure. We are creating a manufacturing advisory service, based on a centre for excellence in every region to help firms to innovate and improve their productivity. We are also introducing measures to help workers develop their skills and increase their prospects of finding new, better employment if they lose their jobs.

  Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the new electricity trading arrangements. [10646]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]Ofgem published on 31 August a review of NETA's performance over the first three months. Their key findings were that:Wholesale electricity prices are 20–25 per cent. below prices that would have been produced under the pool.
  Market liquidity has been established with a threefold increase in the volume of trades, and a doubling of the number of contracts struck compared to this time last year under the pool.
  The National Grid Company is working well to keep the electricity system in balance. Its daily costs of balancing the system have halved, which will also benefit customers.

  In a competitive market, we expect changes in wholesale prices to feed through to final customers. Domestic customers are seeing lower electricity prices with prices down by around three per cent. as are industrial customers with prices down around 11 per cent. We expect that further prices reductions will take place as wholesale prices feed through fully.
  756W
  The impact of NETA on smaller generators continues to be a concern. Ofgem also published a report on the impact of NETA on smaller generators in the first two months of its operation. This report highlighted the areas where further action was needed to assist smaller generators. A consultation document was issued on 1 November 2001 aimed at addressing these concerns.

  BSkyB
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the initial findings of the Office of Fair Trading's inquiry into BSkyB's position in the pay TV market will be made public. [12091]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]The conduct of Competition Act inquiries and the publication of their findings are a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of increased gas prices on(a) the expansion of combined heat and power plants and (b) future emissions targets. [12442]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI's energy projections published in November 2000 included projections of CHP capacity based on assumptions about future oil and gas prices. Those assumptions are still reasonable in the longer term but the Government recognise that high gas prices this year have reduced substantially the attractiveness of investment in new CHP plant in the short term. The Government remain committed to their CHP target of at least 10,000 MWe capacity by 2010, as well as their emission targets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be issuing a draft CHP strategy in the coming months that will set out how the target will be achieved.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total level of Government financial support to the nuclear industry in each year since 1990, including(a) research grants, (b) transfer of debt from privatised utilities, non-fossil fuel levy, (d) investment in BNFL facilities, (e) running costs of UKAEA and NIREX and (f) other sources. [12789]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]Funding to the UK nuclear industry has been provided primarily in the form of grant and grant-in-aid to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). This funding has been primarily to enable the UKAEA to discharge historic nuclear liabilities arising form past civil nuclear research programmes and to decommission those research facilities and restore sites to normal use—with the exception of funding in respect of the UKAEA nuclear fusion research programme at Culham which complements the UK's participation in the European Union's Framework Programme V.
  757W
  In the period 1999–2000, the DTI (Department of Energy prior to May 1992) provided grant/grant-in-aid to the UKAEA as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Grant and grant in aid1

  Fusion

  Other nuclear

  1990–91

  94.3

  26.9

  —

  1991–92

  68.7

  20.7

  —

  1992–93

  2126.2

  16.3

  —

  1993–94

  2128.7

  16.3

  —

  1994–95

  2131.3

  15.7

  —

  1995–963

  199.3

  15.9

  —

  1996–97

  166.5

  12.1

  —

  1997–98

  174.5

  16.6

  8.5

  1998–99

  285

  12.6

  5

  1999–2000

  194.4

  14.4

  3.3

  2000–01

  223.4

  14.3

  3.5

  1 Grant in aid to the UKAEA includes provision for its running costs

  2 Grant payment

  3 Prior to 1995 the UKAEA was a trading fund with a negative external financing requirement

  Note:

  Figures are from Government Expenditure Plan Reports

  As regards the privatisation of the nuclear industry (which included both AEA Technology, and British Energy respectively) arrangements at the time included provision for debts to be included in the privatised companies balance sheets and for those debts to be paid back to the Government at fixed periods.

  Turning to the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO), this obliged electricity suppliers to buy a certain proportion of their electricity from non-fossil sources (nuclear and renewables). Nuclear Electric plc received a premium over and above the market price for electricity in the period 1990–96, as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Premium income

  1990–91

  1,265

  1991–92

  798

  1992–93

  864

  1993–94

  895

  1994–95

  892

  1995–96

  699

  These additional costs incurred by electricity suppliers in meeting their NFFO obligations were reimbursed through the fossil fuel levy on electricity supplied in England and Wales.

  BNFL, as a commercial company, does not receive investment capital from Government, although Ministers have provided assurances from time to time in respect of the Government's willingness to accept responsibility for any future liabilities which might arise.

  The costs of UK NIREX are met by subscriptions from its members (UKAEA, BNFL, British Energy).

  Financial Aid
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total amount of public money given to support(a) farming, (b) the steel industry and (C) all manufacturing industries in each of the last 10 years. [13718]
  758W
  Mr. Wilson
  The primary responsibility for farming support rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. l understand from colleagues that information on public expenditure under the Common Agricultural Policy and on national grants and subsidies is contained in the publication "Agriculture in the UK", and that copies of this publication are available in the Library of the House. My Department provides support for farming under the small firms loan guarantee scheme. The amounts paid against claims relating to farming under the guarantee since 1991 are as follows:

  Year

  Amount paid (£)

  1991

  nil

  1992

  37,336.41

  1993

  15,671.86

  1994

  94,179.59

  1995

  219,391.52

  1996

  242,017.49

  1997

  228,727.59

  1998

  131,508.71

  1999

  19,947.17

  2000

  39,647.41

  2001

  nil to date

  Total

  1,028,427.75

  The provision of state aid to steel companies which produce products covered by the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) treaty is governed by the Steel Aid Code of the treaty. This code permits aid, only in limited circumstances, for research and development, environmental protection and the permanent closure (not rescue) of a steel company. The only instance of aid to a company covered by the treaty was in the mid-nineties when British Steel was provided with aid of around £180,000 towards a research and development project under the Link programme. Further details on aid to this industry could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department currently spends around £1 billion a year in support for business of which a very significant proportion directly and indirectly benefits manufacturing industry. Because of the wide-ranging nature of DTI support quantifying the exact proportion of public money given to support particular industries (e.g. manufacturing or farming) in each of the last 10 years would raise problems of definition and would also incur disproportionate cost.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost implications of the End of Life Vehicles Directive for car manufacturers; and if she will make a statement. [13884]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 159W.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the implications of the End of Life Vehicles Directive; and if she will make a statement. [13883]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Directive is complex, with implications for car and component manufacturers, importers, dismantlers, shredders, materials reprocessors,
  759W
  and car owners. The DTI consultation paper on options for implementing the Directive, which included a partial regulatory impact assessment, had resulted in around 100 responses by the closing date of 2 November. These responses are now being assessed, and will be taken into account when deciding on the precise method of implementation.

  Structural Funding
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) amount and (b) proportion of overall EU objective 1 budget for the UK has been (i) committed and (ii) spent according to the latest records in each of the four objective 1 regions. [14452]

  Alan Johnson
  The figures in the table are the latest available commitments and payments made under the EU structural funds for each of the objective 1 regions. Payments under the programmes lag behind commitments because the fund regulations require ERDF expenditure to be defrayed before it is claimed. ESF projects may receive an advance payment at the beginning of the project but subsequent ESF payments take place after expenditure has been defrayed.

  The management of the objective 1 programme for West Wales and the Valleys is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. However, I understand from the National Assembly that the figures for this region are as set out in the table.

  Region

  Committed grant(£ million)

  Spent grant (£ million)

  Proportion of regional objective 1 budget(Percentage)

  Cornwall and the Scilly Isles

  60

  5.98

  19.53/1.95

  Merseyside

  164.73

  30.68

  20.14/3.75

  South Yorkshire

  92.5

  13.046

  12.86/1.81

  West Wales and the Valleys

  260

  30.4

  24/2.7

  Equal Pay
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many equal value claims have failed for being over the six-month time limit rule since the Equal Pay Act 1963 became law. [14287]

  Alan Johnson
  It would not be possible to provide the number of equal value claims that have failed for being over the six month time limit rule since the Equal Pay Act became law.

  Such information is not available from the Employment Tribunals Service database, which only records the outcome of each case and not the reasons for the outcome.

  Source:
  Employment Tribunals Service

  Photovoltaic Energy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the sale price of photovoltaic energy for national grid purposes; and how this price compares with those in other EU member states. [14372]
  760W
  Mr. Wilson
  In our liberalised energy market, the price paid to generators for electricity, including electricity from photovoltaics (PV), is a matter for negotiation between the generator and the supplier, and is subject to market fluctuation. We therefore have only limited and anecdotal information about prices paid to generators for PV energy. The best price recently mentioned to the Department has been 6.5p per kilowatt hour paid by a company offering a "net metering" deal, that is a deal in which the supplier buys PV energy from generators at the same price that they would charge them for electricity purchases. The best price obtainable at any time will vary with the market.

  Some European countries have taken steps to encourage net metering, and some, notably Germany and Spain, have gone further by legislating for the utilities to pay renewable generators a premium price for all the electricity they wish to export to the network. In the case of PV, this is about 33p per kilowatt hour in Germany and 25p per kilowatt hour in Spain.

  The Government are encouraging the uptake of PV in the UK through both domestic and large-scale field trials, soon to be followed by a major PV demonstration programme to rival the German and Japanese PV roofs programme. It is also working to overcome infrastructural barriers through simplified grid-connection, fairer tariffs and more positive planning guidance.

  Employment Tribunal Claims
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the number of employment tribunal claims in the last five years; and what steps her Department is taking to reduce the extent of non-compliance with regulations by employers. [14374]

  Alan Johnson
  The number of applications were:

  1996–97: 88,961

  1997–98: 80,435

  1998–99: 91,913

  1999–2000: 103,935

  2000–01: 130,408.

  The Employment Bill, introduced in Parliament on 7 November 2001, aims to reduce recourse to employment tribunals through a better understanding of employment rights and responsibilities. In particular, the Bill will set new minimum standards for dealing with workplace disputes and a penalty on employers for failure to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The changes will be supported by advice and guidance to help employers meet the requirements of the law.

  Routes to Resolution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the responses received to her consultation document, "Routes to Resolution". [14373]

  Alan Johnson
  The respondents to the "Routes to Resolution: Improving Dispute Resolution in Britain" consultation are listed in Annexe B of "Routes to Resolution the Government Response" issued on8 November 2001. A copy is lodged in the House of
  761W
  Commons Library. The text is also available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.ukJer/individual/etresponse.pdf. Copies of individual responses are held in the DTI and House of Commons Libraries. I am grateful to those who responded.

WALES

  Bus Travel
  Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about co-ordinating measures to facilitate bus travel for pensioners and the disabled. [12474]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular basis and discuss a range of issues, including transport.

  As the Prime Minister stated during his address to the Assembly, policy on concessionary travel was made in Wales and is now being extended to England.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about measures to facilitate bus travel for pensioners and the disabled. [12495]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend meets the First Secretary on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues, including transport.

  As the Prime Minister stated during his address to the Assembly, policy on concessionary travel was made in Wales and is now being extended to England.

  From 1 April this year free passes have been available to pensioners and disabled passengers guaranteeing at least 50 per cent. concessions on local buses, a move estimated to have benefited some 600,000 pensioners and disabled passengers. From 1 April 2002 these passes will guarantee free local bus travel for pensioners and disabled people.

  A Bill is currently progressing in the House of Commons to equalise the entitlement to concessionary travel for men and women at the age of 60. It is estimated it will bring to some 8 million nationwide the number of people who benefit from the Government's statutory requirements for travel concessions, including some 75,000 men in Wales. It is currently planned to introduce these measures in England in April 2003. The Assembly will have its own commencement powers and could introduce earlier if it wished.

  Special Educational Needs
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales concerning the influx from English border areas of pupils with special needs into north Wales schools. [12476]

  Mr. Touhig
  Although my right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues relating to educational provision in Wales, the influx from English border areas of pupils with special needs into north Wales schools has not been raised.
  762W
  I am, however, aware that the National Assembly for Wales places a high priority on achieving the best possible opportunities for children with special educational needs in order to give them a rewarding school life and to equip them for adult life.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about levels of manufacturing employment in Wales. [12477]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including manufacturing employment in Wales. Some 7,500 jobs have been announced in the manufacturing sector in Wales in the past 12 months. This is particularly welcome in the context of severe losses in the steel sector.

  Objective 1
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Treasury with regard to the Government's policy on the provision of investment aid in the west Wales and the valleys objective 1 programme area; and if he will make a statement. [12478]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet Treasury colleagues regularly to discuss a variety of issues.

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

  Health (Waiting Lists)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly regarding the number of people waiting for treatment in Wales. [12479]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the National Assembly First Minister and Health Minister to discuss a range of issues including the number of people waiting for treatment.

  Crime
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [12482]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [12483]

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the measures taken by Government to tackle crime in Wales. [12494]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Government's partnership approach to fighting crime is making a significant difference in communities across Wales. With funding running into millions of pounds, local crime and disorder reduction partnerships are implementing projects targeted at crime hotspots, domestic violence and drug related crime. Much
  763W
  of this funding is being channelled specifically into the most deprived communities and is going a long way towards building safer and more inclusive communities.

  QinetiQ (Aberporth)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Government and National Assembly Secretaries regarding the future of QinetiQ, Aberporth. [12484]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet both Government and Assembly Ministers regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  The Government have provided funding for the September 2001 apprentice intake at Aberporth. Future arrangements for apprentices at QinetiQ sites depend on the Ministry of Defence review of Ranges and Test Evaluation provision. The MOD expects to have agreed a procurement strategy for this business by the end of the year.

  Wrexham Incinerator
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with members of the Assembly about the proposed Wrexham incinerator and its potential cross-border effect on English constituencies. [12485]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had no direct discussion on this subject with Assembly Members as any planning proposal is a matter for the relevant local authority and the National Assembly for Wales.

  I understand that the Assembly has received a number of requests for the planning application to be called in and consideration is currently being given to these requests. The Assembly's approach is not to interfere with a local planning authority's jurisdiction unless an application involves planning issues of more than local importance.

  Livestock Movements
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the operation of the autumn movement of livestock scheme in Wales. [12486]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on a wide range of issues, which have of course included matters related to foot and mouth disease. I understand that in respect of this scheme there is close and effective operational liaison between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the National Assembly.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning the future of manufacturing industry in Wales. [12487]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet, visit and correspond regularly with representatives of the Welsh manufacturing industry. Some 7,500 jobs have been announced in the manufacturing sector in Wales in the past 12 months. This is particularly welcome in the context of severe losses in the steel sector.

  New Deal
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the operation of the new deal in Wales. [12488]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The new deal has been a success story in Wales. 81,500 people in Wales have benefited from the scheme so far and 42 per cent. of those have now found jobs. Since the launch of the scheme in Wales there has been a 68 per cent. fall in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming jobseeker's allowance for six months or more and the number of people over 25 claiming jobseeker's allowance for two years or more has fallen by 45 per cent.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning further and higher education in north-east Wales. [12489]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have had a number of meetings and discussions recently to discuss education in Wales. These discussions have included the provision of higher education.

  The Assembly's Education and Lifelong Learning Committee is conducting a comprehensive policy review of higher education in Wales, to inform a 10-year strategy for the sector. The review's findings are expected later this year.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the operation of the Barnett formula relating to health provision. [12490]

  Mr. Touhig
  The operation of the Barnett formula has no direct effect on health provision in Wales. Therefore, I have not discussed this with the First Minister.

  Farmers Assistance
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding extra funds for the National Assembly for Wales to assist those farmers in Wales suffering losses resulting from animal movement restrictions and poor trading conditions. [R] [12491]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a number of issues.

  I welcome the re-establishment of Welsh lamb and beef in domestic markets, and the recent announcement that the export of sheep and goat meat can resume from parts of Wales. The Government have extended the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme in order to pre-empt problems arising this winter for lambs that would, under normal trading conditions, be sold and moved off farms.

  I understand that the Assembly is making strenuous efforts to deal with both long-term issues in Welsh agriculture and the current difficulties affecting the market and farmers' incomes this autumn. Both the Assembly and

  765W
  the Welsh Development Agency stand ready to assist the livestock industry with marketing and processing grants for viable projects.

  School Transport
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the First Secretary of the National Assembly to discuss the legal obligations placed on local authorities relating to home-to-school transport. [12492]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have written to the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning on this matter, with particular reference to the issues raised by my hon. Friend in the debate on Transport to School, on 30 October 2001,Official Report, columns 243–50WH. Local education authorities (LEAs) have a statutory duty to decide how best to meet their home to school transport obligations. LEAs are obliged to provide free transport to the nearest school for pupils under eight-years-old who live more than two miles from the school, and for pupils above the age of eight who live more than three miles from the school.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent meetings he has had with UK Government Departments to represent the interests of small businesses in Wales. [12469]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet my colleagues in UK Government Departments regularly to discuss a range of issues, including small businesses in Wales.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about tackling violent crime in Wales. [12480]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend meets regularly with the Home Secretary to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales.

  The Government are committed to increasing the reporting and recording of violent crime. Violent crime represents a relatively small proportion of crime, but it is recognised that it includes those crimes that cause people most concern.

  We have put in place a comprehensive package of measures to combat violent crime which is set out in "Fighting Violent Crime Together", published earlier this year.

TREASURY

  Departmental Spending (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the expenditure by his Department in each of the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01, (f) 2001–02 and (g) 2002–03 (estimated) was allocated with reference to the index of multiple deprivation; which expenditure programmes are allocated with respect to this index and other measures of relative geographic deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [8935]
  766W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: HM Treasury has had a modest programme budget, none of which is allocated with reference to the indices of multiple deprivation.

  Impounded Vehicles
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance is given to Customs and Excise officials on the(a) impounding and (b) disposal of impounded vehicles used to breach personal allowances for tobacco and alcohol; and if he will make a statement. [14076]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, section 141(1)(a), allows Customs to seize vehicles that have been used for the transport of anything liable to seizure. As part of the tackling tobacco strategy, and following recommendations from Martin Taylor, the independent tobacco evaluator, Customs strengthened their approach to anyone using vehicles to smuggle goods including alcohol and tobacco.

  Seized vehicles are stored until condemnation proceedings are completed giving Customs the legal right to dispose of them as they see fit. Customs will dispose of the vehicles in a cost-effective manner most beneficial to the UK Exchequer.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sites are used to store vehicles impounded by Customs and Excise officials on the grounds that they were being used to breach personal allowances for the importation of tobacco and alcohol; and if he will make a statement. [14075]

  Mr. Boateng
  A number of sites are used around the UK. These are made available as part of the contract arrangements Customs has in place to provide storage facilities for both vehicles and goods. For security reasons the specific details of these sites cannot be disclosed.

  Staff Shortages
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 202W, how many instances have been brought to his attention by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise where appeals and reviews have been cancelled owing to staff shortages. [14276]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs endeavour to complete all reviews within the statutory period of 45 days. Where for any reason they cannot do so, such as at particularly busy periods, section 15(2) of the Finance Act 1994 states that if Customs do not carry out the review within the 45 days from when the review was required they shall be assumed to have confirmed the decision. Where Customs cannot complete a review within the statutory period, the appellant still has the right to go to a tribunal.

  Automotive Fuel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was raised in each year since 1997 from the retail sale of automotive fuel. [14011]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not available.

  Motor Vehicles (Tax Income)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was raised in each year since 1997 from(a) the sale, maintenance and repair of motorcycles and related parts and accessories, (b) the sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories, (c) the maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and (d) the sale of motor vehicles. [14012]

  Mr. Boateng
  The estimated amount of VAT raised from the maintenance and repair, including parts and accessories, of motor vehicles and motorcycles since 1997 is:

  Year

  £ billion

  1997

  1.7

  1998

  1.9

  1999

  2.0

  2000

  2.0

  It is not possible to estimate the Government's income from VAT on the sale of motor vehicles and motorcycles except at disproportionate cost

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the growth of public sector pay in 2001 on the level of public expenditure. [14212]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public sector pay costs have been accommodated within the agreed public spending totals, in accordance with normal prices.

  Civil Service Pay Negotiations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) public expenditure and (b) recruitment and retention within the civil service of the devolution to individual Government Departments and agencies of responsibility for pay negotiations. [14213]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  On public expenditure, the position continues to be that Departments are expected to meet pay costs from within their public spending allocations. The flexibilities under the delegations allow Departments to structure their pay arrangements to meet their own particular circumstances and requirements, including dealing more effectively with recruitment and retention issues.

  Afghanistan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact on public expenditure on non-military priorities of the commitment to military expenditure in the conflict in Afghanistan. [14257]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  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.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Treasury is taking to monitor the impact of the climate change levy on(a) manufacturing industry and (b) the service sector; and if he will publish the results. [14333]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy package is broadly revenue neutral for services and manufacturing but the impact on any specific sector will depend on a number of factors, including:The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.
  Employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded reductions in employers' National Insurance Contributions.
  The number of energy intensive firms in that sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement.
  What use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt sources such as new renewables and combined heat and power.

  As with all taxation, we will monitor revenue and sectoral impacts. Revenue receipts are published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exclude the nuclear power industry from the climate change levy. [14138]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy is designed to encourage energy efficiency across the business and public sectors and to increase the use of sustainable forms of energy. The Government have no plans to exclude the nuclear power industry from the levy.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the climate change levy is paid by engineering; and if he will estimate the percentage of economic output produced by engineering; [14431]

  (2) if the climate change levy is revenue neutral for the engineering sector. [14424]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy is designed to be broadly revenue neutral across both the manufacturing and service sectors. The impact of the levy on any particular sector will be determined by a number of factors, including The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.
  Employment levels in the sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded National Insurance contribution cuts.
  The number of energy intensive firms in the sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement.
  What use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt "new" renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  On the most recently available figures, engineering represents an estimated 6 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms have paid corporation tax at no more than the 10p rate in each year since its introduction. [14421]
  769W
  Dawn Primarolo
  It is too early to say. The lop rate was introduced from the 2000–01 tax year, and small companies do not have to pay their corporation tax until nine months after the end of their accounting periods. But we estimate that about 150,000 corporation tax payers will be at 10 per cent. (with a further 150.000 paying at an average rate between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to simplify the administration of corporation tax. [14422]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep the whole tax system under review, acting where possible to change tax rules to minimise burdens on business, while still meeting the Government's objectives for a fair and efficient tax system. The administration of corporation tax is one of a number of areas covered by current or recent reviews.

  Regulation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce targets for reducing the number of regulations issued by his Department over the next four years. [14429]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's policy is to regulate only when necessary, ensuring that regulations are fair and effective, so that they protect the vulnerable but do not stifle competitiveness or productivity.

  New processes including the Regulatory Reform Act give us powerful tools to help cut down over-complex, over-lapping and over-burdensome regulatory regimes.

  The Prime Minister has asked all Whitehall Departments to identify by the end of this year areas of legislation that are ripe for reform under this and other procedures. A Government-wide action plan will then be published containing firm commitments to specific reforms and initiatives which will aid both business and the public sector.

  The Chancellor's Departments (along with Department's across Government) continue to explore ways of reducing regulatory burdens. There are no plans to introduce targets for reducing the number of regulations issued.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the level of higher rate taxation as a factor in attracting senior management to the UK(a) public and (b) private sectors. [14426]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are pledged not to raise the top rate of tax in this Parliament. It is 40 per cent. and compares favourably with our competitors' equivalent rates.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce new anti-avoidance measures in respect of stamp duty. [14439]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government regularly review the adequacy of legislation to counter avoidance of all taxes, including stamp duty.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from interest groups representing the elderly regarding(a) the marginal tax rate in the pension credit and (b) the pension credit savings limit. [14445]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers receive a wide range of representations on a variety of issues.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding pre-Budget representations received from interest groups representing the elderly concerning the pension credit. [14446]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets regularly with Cabinet colleagues to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised on insurance premium tax in each year since May 1997. [14394]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures for receipts of insurance premium tax are shown in the Office for National Statistics publication "Financial Statistics".

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised by the abolition of tax relief on private medical insurance in each year since its abolition. [14393]

  Ruth Kelly
  Annual estimates of the yield from the abolition of tax relief on premiums for private medical insurance for the over-60s were given in the July 1997 Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR). No further estimates have been made.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised in the last financial year from penalties imposed on firms where employees have cashed in employee share ownership schemes too early. [14442]

  Ruth Kelly
  No penalties are imposed on firms, but employees may be liable to tax and national insurance contributions on shares granted under the share incentive plan if they withdraw from the plan early. Returns have only just been received from companies reflecting their first year's operation of the plan, so it is too early to estimate the amounts which may be involved.

  Prospectus Directive
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding the proposed Prospectus Directive. [14405]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Economic and Finance Council of Ministers discussed the risk capital action plan, of which the proposed Prospectus Directive is a part, on 6 November. The United Kingdom argued that substantial
  771W
  work on the directive is required to deliver the risk capital action plan's objectives to increase the availability of risk capital in the EU.

  HM Treasury is in regular contact with all levels of the Commission, and has communicated the United Kingdom Government's reservations about the directive, as currently drafted, on many occasions.

  Hawala
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken to bring the Hawala exchange system within the scope of his new arrangements to combat the funding of international terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [14382]

  Ruth Kelly
  On Monday 12 November, regulations came into force to give Customs new powers to enter and inspect money service businesses, including Hawala, Hundi and other alternative remittance agents, to ensure that they are compliant with the 1993 Money Laundering Regulations. Where they find a breach of these regulations, Customs will be able to prosecute.

  Share Incentive Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of how employee share ownership can be encouraged in sectors of the economy with relatively high employee turnover. [14441]

  Ruth Kelly
  The share incentive plan and enterprise management incentives introduced in Finance Act 2000 were developed on the basis of extensive consultation. This ensured the design of both was flexible to enable companies in all sectors, including those with relatively high employee turnover, to adapt the schemes to suit their particular needs. For the share incentive plan companies can set a qualifying period of service for employees to benefit from the plan. They can also include forfeiture and pre-emption conditions if they wish.

  The new plans are being closely monitored to assess how far they are meeting the needs of companies of all sizes and sectors.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on, and what plans he has to reduce, the qualifying period for SIPs. [14440]

  Ruth Kelly
  The share incentive plan was introduced to encourage greater share ownership among employees. Employees must retain their shares in the plan for five years to earn full exemption from tax and national insurance contributions. We have received one representation to reduce this period from five to three years. This would work against the aim of encouraging employees to retain shares in the company they work for over the long term, and it would be costly in terms of tax forgone.

  There is no requirement for companies to set a qualifying period of service before employees may benefit from the plan although they may do so if they wish, up to a maximum of 18 months.

  Occupational Pension Funds Directive
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding the proposed directive on occupational pension funds. [14404]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Economic and Finance Council of Ministers discussed the proposed directive on the activities of institutions for occupational retirement provision on 6 May,Official Report, 10 May 2001, column 284W. Ministers agreed that further work was required. Ecofin on 16 October noted a Presidency report on progress on the draft directive, Official Report, 24 October 2001, column 260W.

  Labour Supply
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of national insurance rates on the supply of labour. [14388]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reducing national insurance contributions for those on low incomes forms part of the Government's strategy to make work pay. As a result of reforms since 1997, around 1 million lower paid employees have been taken out of having to pay NICs altogether. Cautious estimates show that labour supply has increased by around 160,000 people as a result of the entire package of measures to make work pay since 1997, including the reductions in income tax and national insurance contributions as well as working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit.

  Taxation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the combined burden of taxation on motoring is borne by industry; [14418]

  (2) what percentage of the total tax burden was borne by business in each year since May 1997. [14433]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many manufacturing jobs have been lost since April. [14392]

  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. John Bercow, dated 14 November 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the reduction in the number of manufacturing jobs since April (14392).

  The table below shows the number of employee jobs in manufacturing for April and August 2001 for comparative purposes.

  UK

  Thousand1

  April 2001

  3,864

  August 2001

  3,805

  Change between April and August 2001

  2-59

  1 Seasonally adjusted

  2 -1.5 per cent.

  773W
  These estimates are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs. The data are published in Statbase on the National Statistics website www.statistics.gov.ukIstatbaseitsdataset.asp?vink=342 under series identifier YEJL.

  Mortality Statistics
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died from(a) meningitis and (b) carbon monoxide poisoning, excluding suicides, in each of the last four years. [14407]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Helen Jackson, dated 14 November 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent about the number of people died from (a) meningitis and (b) carbon monoxide poisoning, excluding suicides in each of the last four years (14407).

  The data are included in the table below.

  Number of deaths in England and Wales from meningitis and carbon monoxide poisoning (excluding suicides), persons, all ages,1997–20001

  Calendar year

  Meningitis

  Carbon monoxide poisoning (excluding suicide)

  1997

  466

  156

  1998

  426

  150

  1999

  399

  135

  2000

  405

  118

  1 Cause of death in these years was coded to the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision (ICD9)

  Notes:
  The codes used to define the terms used in the table are as follows:
  Meningitis—ICD9 underlying cause codes 036, 320–322
  Carbon monoxide poisoning—ICD9 nature of injury code 986
  Suicide—ICD9 underlying cause codes E950-E959, E980-E989 excluding E988.8
  Source:
  ONS

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date his Department established a working group of officials to prepare his Department for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and on what dates this committee has met since it was set up. [14777]

  Ruth Kelly
  A working group was set up in October to co-ordinate preparations for the Freedom of Information Act. The first meeting of the group will be on 30 November.

  Working Hours
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 154W, on excessive working hours, if he will place in the Library the results from the aggregated data for every sub annual period since the data was first collected; if he will place a greater level of detail on his methodology in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [14833]
  774W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested by the hon. Member has been deposited in the Library.

  Pensions
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met trade union representatives to discuss(a) miners' pension issues and (b) pension funds surpluses; and if he will make a statement. [13514]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  (holding answer 13 November 2001]: Treasury Ministers meet regularly with a wide range of groups of people to discuss a variety of topics.

  Professional Contractors Group
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings he has had with the Professional Contractors Group in the last 12 months. [14852]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 128W.

  IR35 (Training Provision)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on how IR35 will affect training provision for IT contractors; and what new incentives are available to increase this training; [14855]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on IT contractors' training provision of (a) the introduction of IR35 and (b) the ending of individual learning accounts. [14854]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employees who pay for their own training are not in general entitled to a tax deduction for this expense. Individuals affected by the 'service company' legislation are in a similar position. However they are entitled to an additional 5 per cent. flat rate deduction for expenses on top of all the other expenses normally available to an employee, which they can use to provide for their training needs if they so wish. The withdrawal of individual learning accounts has had the same effect on all individuals previously eligible for them, and service company workers are not affected any differently from anybody else.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the DFES regarding the decision to end individual learning accounts, with specific reference to training for IT contractors. [14853]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets regularly with his Cabinet colleagues to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people over the age of 65 years pay income tax. [14944]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to "Inland Revenue Statistics", table 2.1. The latest version can he accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

  Double Taxation Conventions
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will submit to the House the double taxation conventions that the Government recently concluded with Jordan and Lithuania; and if he will make a statement. [15464]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The conventions with Jordan and Lithuania were signed on 22 July and 19 March respectively. The texts of the conventions with Jordan and Lithuania have each been published today as a schedule to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House. After signature the texts were deposited in the Library of the House and made available on the Inland Revenue's website.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures indicating the effective upper earnings limit on the equivalent of national insurance contributions for each EU member state in the latest year for which figures are available. [14390]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information and details about the social security contributions systems of other EU member states, and more generally about other OECD member countries, is published annually in the OECD publication "Taxing Wages". A copy of this publication is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Tax/National Insurance Receipts
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the receipts of(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax and (c) national insurance for November and December and January 2002. [14300]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Forecasts of receipts on a monthly basis are not published.

  Smuggling (Motor Fuel Products)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the fuel duty and VAT lost in each year since 1997 through the smuggling of motor fuel products into Northern Ireland. [14013]

  Mr. Boateng
  Updated estimates. will be presented in the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Visit (Pakistan)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whom she met and what discussions she had during her recent visit to Pakistan. [12908]

  Clare Short
  I visited Pakistan from 17 to 19 October. My statement on 24 October 2001,Official Report, columns 284–85, reported on the discussions I had there.

  I met President Musharraf, Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz and the Ministers of Health, Education, Northern Areas and Women's Affairs. I met the Governor of the
  776W
  North West Frontier Province and some of his ministers and senior officials. I had informal discussions with local representatives of NGOs, including SCF, Oxfam, CARE and the Iranian Red Cross; and with representatives of the UN agencies. I also had a meeting with the US Ambassador. In Peshawar, I visited the World Food Programme office and food distribution depot.

  Caribbean
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out the conclusions her Department reached in its examination of further support to the CARICOM-sponsored regional plan for tackling 'HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean; and if she will make a statement. [14412]

  Clare Short
  We have confirmed our readiness to provide additional support to the regional HIV/AIDS action plan for the Caribbean, particularly in the key area of policy and advocacy support. CARICOM will be convening a meeting of all interested donors in St. Lucia this month to examine the most effective process for turning the action plan into reality.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out how the funding for the second phase of the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre Project has been allocated and itemise the purposes to which it has been applied, by island or territory. [14416]

  Clare Short
  DFID support for the second Phase of the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre (CAREC) project is geared towards the Prevention and Control of AIDS and Sexually transmitted diseases in the Caribbean (£713,564). Specific outputs include:

  (a) improved HIV/AIDS/CSTD case management in Caribbean member countries which aims to improve the quality of STD diagnosis and treatment;

  (b) the development and implementation of information, education and communication (IEC) interventions aimed at target groups;

  (c) improved management of National AIDS programmes in participating Caribbean member countries; and

  (d) implementation of sentinel surveillance for HIV, Syphilis and Hepatitis B in six Caribbean member countries.

  We are considering a further project with CAREC designed to strengthen its effectiveness as an organisation to respond to the growing incidence of HIV/AIDS in the region.

  Ivory Coast
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which(a) non-Governmental organisations and (b) charities the Government support in the Ivory Coast. [14073]

  Clare Short
  We are currently supporting the work of four non-governmental organisations in Cote d'Ivoire. Through our Small Grants Scheme we are helping to support the work of the World Wide Fund for Nature, Cote d'Ivoire Ecology, and Afrique Nature International. We are also supporting the work of Action on Disability and Development through the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ethnic Minority Staff
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the second annual report on progress on his race equality employment targets for ethnic minority staff in his Department and its service areas. [15465]

  Angela Eagle
  I have today published a report entitled "Race Equality—The Home Secretary's Employment Targets—The Second Annual Report on Progress". Copies have been placed in the Library. The targets cover recruitment, retention and career progression for minority ethnic staff in the Home Office, the prison, the police, the fire and the probation services.

  Amarjit Singh
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. Amarjit Singh, stating for what reason he has been detained. [12297]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to my hon. Friend about this matter on 14 November.

  Downview Prison
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners there were at HMP Downview on 26 October; and, of these, how many were(a) UK and (b) Jamaican citizens convicted of trafficking in illegal drugs. [11935]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: On the morning of 26 October 2001, there were 130 female prisoners at Downview prison, rising to 140 by the end of the day. A breakdown of nationality and drug offence for that date is not held centrally. However, provisional data for the morning of 13 November 2001 show that there were 180 female prisoners in Downview prison. Of these, 13 United Kingdom (including prisoners from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) and 28 Jamaican nationals were imprisoned for importing/exporting or conspiring to import/export drugs. The population of each prison is shown in the monthly prison population brief available on http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds.

  Government Bunkers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the former Government bunkers sold to private purchasers since 1990. [13413]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Following the decision of the then Home Secretary in 1992, the Home Office has sold Regional Government Headquarters (RGHQ) bunkers at the following addresses to private purchasers:

  1. Shipton by Beningbrough, Near York, North Yorkshire

  2. Alemouth Road. Hexham, Northumberland

  3. Skendleby, Near Spilsby, Lincolnshire

  4. Buder Street, Loughborough, Leicestershire

  5. Watton Road, Bawburgh, Near Norwich, Norfolk

  6. Day's Lane, Biddenham, Bedford, Bedfordshire

  7. Keveldon Hall Lane, Keveldon Hatch, Near Brentwood, Essex

  8. RAF Chilmark, Near Salisbury, Wiltshire778W

  778W

  9. Crown Building, Soar Gull Perch, Hope Cove, Devon

  10. Borras Park Road, Wrexham, North Wales

  11. Brackla Tunnels, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  12. Longly Lane, Goosnargh. Preston, Lancashire

  13. French Lane, Hack Green. Near Nantwich, Cheshire.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Putney will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 8 October, for which he received an acknowledgement on 7 November, on behalf of his constituent Ms Karen Devlin. [14371]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend Lord Rooker has now replied to my hon. Friend.

  Nationality Applications
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality are under consideration by his Department. [13931]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that statistics on the number of British nationality applications under consideration are not available.

  Since April this year, all new cases are initiated as soon as they arrive. The vast majority of cases awaiting a decision are already in progress, and we aim to start all remaining cases by March 2002. This means that the queue of applications waiting to be considered is getting shorter.

  Security Service
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the extra cost to the Security Service of activities in connection with events following the 11 September terrorist attacks; and if this cost will be met from the existing Security Service budget. [14078]

  Mr. Blunkett
  It has long been the policy of this and previous Governments not to comment on the individual budgets of the Security and Intelligence agencies. The impact of the terrorist attacks on 11 September is being taken into account in considering the Security Service budget.

  Prison Education
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison education departments have obtained a Basic Skills Agency Quality Mark. [13958]

  Beverley Hughes
  Forty-eight prison education departments have obtained the Basic Skills Agency Quality Mark to date.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners have achieved(a) Entry Level Wordpower and Numberpower and (b) Level One Wordpower and Numberpower since December 1996; [13959]

  (2) how many prisoners have successfully completed the (a) Basic Skills Test in Life Skills, (b) Social and Life Skills Programme and (c) Oxford and Cambridge Board Diploma in Achievement. [13956]
  779W
  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of individual qualifications achieved in various categories since April 2000. Statistical returns allow some desegregation but do not contain separate figures for the Oxford and Cambridge Diploma. We do not recognise Basic Skills Test in Life Skills as a "qualification".

  Subject type and the number of qualifications achieved

  Subject type and level

  Qualifications achieved

  Entry level—WordPower

  621

  Level 1—WordPower

  1,007

  Entry level—NumberPower

  359

  Level 1—NumberPower

  653

  Basic skills test in life skills

  —

  Social and life skills programme

  2,644

  Oxford and Cambridge board diploma in achievement

  —

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will state the names of contractors(a) providing prison education and (b) who

  Education providers/contractors and prison establishments

  Company

  Establishments

  Amersham and Wycombe College

  Aylesbury, Belmarsh, Brixton, Cookham Wood, Elmley Grendon/Spring Hill,Holloway, Pentonville, Rochester, Standford Hill, Swaleside, Wandsworth,Wormwood Scrubs

  Beverley College

  Full Sutton, Wakefield

  Blackpool and The Fylde College

  Kirkham, Preston

  City College, Manchester

  Ashwell, Askham Grange, Hatfield, Haverigg, Leeds, Lindholme, Liverpool,Manchester, Moorland, New Hall, Risley, Stocken, Stoke Heath, Styal, Wealstun,Werrington, Wetherby

  CfBT Education Services

  Huntercombe, Reading

  Derby Tertiary College (Wilmorton)

  Foston Hall, Sudbury

  Dudley College

  Birmingham, Brinsford, Brockhill, Featherstone, Hewell Grange, Nottingham,Ranby, Shrewsbury, Whatton

  Evesham College

  Long Lartin

  Filton College

  Eastwood Park, Gloucester

  Gwent Tertiary College

  Cardiff, Swansea, Usk/Prescoed

  Highbury College

  Haslar, Kingston, Winchester

  Isle of Wight College

  Albany, Camp Hill, Parkhurst

  Kent Adult Education Service

  Aldington, Blantyre House, Canterbury, Dover, East Sutton Park, Maidstone

  Kingston Upon Hull Community Education Services

  Everthorpe, Hull

  Lancaster and Morecambe College

  Lancaster, Lancaster Farms

  Lewes Tertiary College

  Lewes

  Matthew Boulton College

  Bedford, Gartree, Glen Parva, Leicester, Lincoln, Littlehey, Morton Hall, North Sea Camp, Onley, Wellingborough

  Milton Keynes College

  Bullingdon, The Mount, Woodhill

  North East Surrey College of Training (NESCOT)

  Coldingley, Downview, Feltham, Highdown, Send

  New College, Durham

  Acklington, Castington, Deerbolt, Durham, Frankland, Holme House, Low Newton, Northallerton

  Northbrook College

  Ford

  Norwich City Centre

  Blundeston, Bullwood Hall, Chelmsford, Highpoint, Hollesley Bay, Norwich,Wayland, Whitemoor

  Richmond Upon Thames College

  Latchmere House

  Runshaw College

  Garth, Wymott

  Strode College

  Bristol, Channings Wood, Dartmoor, Dorchester, Exeter, Portland, Shepton Mallet, The Verne, Weare

  Tamworth and Lichfield College

  Drake Hall, Stafford, Swinfen Hall

  Trowbridge College

  Erlestoke, Guys Marsh

  Wigan and Leigh College

  Hindley, Thorn Cross, Thorn Cross HIT

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners assessed as having literacy and numeracy skills below level two on entry to prison have achieved nationally accredited qualifications up to level two, since April 2000. [13957]
  780W
  have failed to reach the minimum standard required by the quality monitoring and assessment procedure; and what the grades obtained by each of them were; [13961]

  (2) how many contracts for providing prison education have been withdrawn because contractors failed to reach the standards required for consideration in the re-tendering process since 1997. [13955]

  Beverley Hughes
  December 1988 marked the end of the first five-year tendering period. In April 1997, there were 45 prison education providers. Following completion of the re-tendering exercise the number was reduced to 28 in 1999. The existing contractors are set out in the table. No contracts have been withdrawn since the re-tendering exercise.

  The newly founded Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit located in Department for Education and Skills will be reviewing the funding, procurement and delivery of prison education. The review will draw up a comprehensive improvement strategy which will include the dissemination of existing good practice. It will also challenge and support establishments where education provision gives cause for concern. The unit is leading a review of the present contracting arrangements for that provision.

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. Data on prison education do not enable the tracking of individual prisoners. Figures do show that 21,319 prisoners have achieved nationally accredited basic skills qualifications up to level two, since
  781W
  April 2000. The Prisoners' Learning and Skills unit located in the Department for Education and Skills is looking into ways of improving the collection of data on prison assessments, participation and achievement.

  Prison Welfare-to-Work Programme
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisons operate welfare-to-work programmes. [13963]

  Beverley Hughes
  Currently, 11 establishments are delivering the Prison Service's welfare-to-work programme. They are: Cardiff. Deerbolt, Glen Parva, Guys Marsh, Lancaster Farms, Moorland, New Hall, Onley, Portland, Stoke Heath and Usk.

  A number of other establishments provide similar prerelease programmes, often in partnership with voluntary sector organisations. For example, the Foundation Training Company delivers an employment training programme at Feltham, Chelmsford, Hollesley Bay, Highpoint and Norwich. The New Bridge provides a careers advice and jobfinding service in 17 establishments. The Headstart pre-release programme operates at Thorn Cross, Hindley and Risley. All of these programmes are geared to helping more prisoners into employment or the new deal on release as a contribution of reducing re-offending.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners have successfully completed the welfare to work programme in each year since its introduction. [13962]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service welfare-to-work programme began in April 1998. The available information on prisoners starting and successfully completing the programme is shown in the table.

  Number of prisoners:

  Period

  Starting the programme

  Successfully completing the programme

  Percentage of prisoners successfully completing the programme

  April 1998 to March 1999

  2,428

  1,625

  67

  April 1999 to March 2000

  2,475

  1,944

  79

  April 2000 to March 2001

  1,766

  1,476

  84

  April 2001 to September 2001

  1,151

  712

  62

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of cases is in each division at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and what the waiting time is for naturalisation, from application to determination. [13632]

  Angela Eagle
  Statistics on the number of cases awaiting an initial decision in each division of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are not currently available, with the exception of asylum applications, as these are subject to rigorous quality checks. The result of a physical count on 31 August 2001 showed that there were 43,100 asylum cases awaiting an initial decision.
  782W
  Information on the average waiting time for naturalisations are not routinely published. The most recent published information relates to March 2001, when the average waiting time was 11.6 months.

  One of the Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets is to reduce the average time taken to grant citizenship (naturalisations and registrations) to six months by the end of 2001–02. It is expected that performance on this target will be reported on in due course after the end of this financial year.

  Prison IT Systems
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prisons and (b) young offenders institutions use IT systems which have not been networked. [13960]

  Beverley Hughes
  All prisons have a varying degree of Information Technology (IT) provision. The existing provision has been driven by local policy and local, internal networking is quite common. Currently, across the Prison Service as a whole, there is basic e-mail provision. It has been recognised that the Prison Service needs a modern infrastructure with interlinkings. To this end, Her Majesty's Prison Service has entered into a contract, part of which has the requirement to provide the Service with a new infrastructure that will provide common services on a Service-wide network and enable Her Majesty's Prison Service to build an electronic interface with the wider Criminal Justice System. We are on the verge of beginning the implementation of this new infrastructure.

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many consultation documents were issued by his Department from(a) 15 October to 14 January, (b) 15 January to 14 April, (c) 15 April to 14 July and (d) 15 July to 14 October in each year from 1996. [12901]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department holds central records on issued consultations from 1997 for the Home Office, its non-departmental bodies and agencies. Between 1997 and 2000 the information is held by year of publication only. Determining all the details contained in the question would require access to archived records at a disproportionate cost. However in order to give the fullest reply I have listed the number of consultations published each year from 1997 to date.

  Year

  Number of consultations issued

  1997

  14

  1998

  23

  1999

  19

  2000

  28

  2001

  20

  Details of all Home Office published consultations can be found on the website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ atoz/consultpapers.htm. Consultations published after January 2001 are also on the national register of consultations on http://www.ukonline.gov.uk.

PRIME MINISTER

  Travel Costs (Concorde)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of his travel on Concorde on 7 November; and if this was at a reduced rate. [13974]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: Since 1999 this Government have published a list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The information requested will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  All travel was undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code on Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Library.

  US Visit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the cost of his visit to the United States on 7 November; which officials and Ministers accompanied him; and if he will make a statement. [14140]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) today Official Report, column 783W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  People's Panel
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the evaluation of the People's Panel will be(a) completed and (b) published. [15042]

  Mr. Leslie
  A first draft has been received. The final evaluation report will be completed in December and published in January 2002.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the People's Panel's contract with MORI expires. [15043]

  Mr. Leslie
  The contract with MORI expires at the end of January 2002.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13819]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) on 6 November 2001,Official Report, columns 91–94.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his most recent estimate is of the value 784W
  of benefit fraud; and how much fraudulently obtained benefit has been repaid following detection in each year since 1997. [7470]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our most recent estimate is that £2 billion is lost annually through benefit fraud. It is not possible to separate the total amount of overpaid benefit recovered into overpayments due to fraud and those due to other reasons.

  Widows' Payments
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has better to publicise the time limit for making applications for widows' payments; [10825]

  (2) what plans he has for relaxing the time limit for applications for widows' payments in circumstances where the applicant may be unable to make the application within the normal time limit because of ill health; and if he will make a statement. [10827]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are sympathetic to the needs of the recently bereaved and understand that making a claim for bereavement benefits will not be the first priority for people in these circumstances. We believe the three month time limit for claiming bereavement benefits strikes the right balance between allowing people time to grieve and setting a reasonable and appropriate limit on the length of time within which a claim to benefit should be made. The three month time limit for making a claim was introduced in 1997 for the majority of Social Security benefits and we have no plans to change it.

  Since March 2000 the Department has issued leaflets on the new bereavement benefits to doctors' surgeries, Post Offices and benefit advisers. Articles explaining the new benefits were placed in a variety of magazines prior to their introduction in April 2001. Claim forms for bereavement benefits also include a clear explanation that claims must be made within three months. In addition, the Registrar of Deaths automatically issues a form to the person registering the death which gives them the opportunity to make a claim for bereavement benefits.

  Benefit Services (Performance Standards)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions he has used his statutory powers to direct improved standards of performance following persistent failures to deliver acceptable benefit services; and in which local authority areas those powers have been exercised in the last three years. [12940]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Powers under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 were used to give directions to Northampton borough council in August 2000. In addition, powers under the Local Government Act 1999 were used to give directions in the London borough of Hackney in October 2001.

  Employment Advisory Panel
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what projects will be undertaken by the Employment Advisory Panel; what its budget is; how many support staff it will have; to whom it will report; and when. [12942]
  785W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The National Employment Panel is an employer-led body which provides independent advice to Ministers on the design, delivery and performance of the UK Government's labour market policies and programmes. Its remit encompasses all the new deals and other welfare-to-work activities delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions, Jobcentre Plus and partner organisations at the national and local levels.

  Projects will include a review to examine how effectively welfare-to-work programmes are addressing the needs of the most disadvantaged across the new deal programmes; a new skills sub-group to advise on links between welfare-to-work initiatives and work force development; and work to promote equal access to employment for ethnic minorities through a standing Minority Ethnic Advisory Group.

  The National Employment Panel is funded by the Department for Work and Pensions. It has a budget of £603,000 per annum. It is supported by 15 staff of whom two are funded by private employers.

  The National Employment Panel reports on a regular basis to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The skills sub-group will report to the Minister responsible for adult skills, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey).

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much unpaid benefit is due in areas where Jobcentre Plus staff are undertaking strike action; and what his Department's estimate is of the amount of benefit that will be owed to claimants if strike action continues for(a) one week, (b) two weeks, (c) a month and (d) more than a month. [14225]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: Detailed contingency plans are in place to ensure that customers continue to receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

  Performance Framework
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the principles which underlie the Performance Framework; in what ways it differs from the system of Best Value; and whether it will be piloted in local authority areas. [12939]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are committed to a performance framework for the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (HB/CTB), aimed at driving up standards of administration and counter-fraud activity in all types of local authority. The proposed performance framework will include: national standards which make clear what local authorities are expected to deliver; measurement and inspection, so we know whether local authorities are delivering; and consideration of subsidy incentives that reward improved performance.

  As a first step, we are defining national performance standards which build on and go beyond the measures established by Best Value but do not replace them. The standards are based on Benefit Fraud Inspectorate findings, Audit Commission observations and reports, National Audit Office reports and academic research.
  786W
  They define an effective and secure HB/CTB service—addressing strategic management; customer service; speed, accuracy and security in the processing of claims; work with landlords; internal security; counter fraud; and overpayments.

  The standards have already been tested in a pilot exercise over the summer in 14 local authorities. We are formally consulting the local authority associations on performance standards as part of the performance framework, and a copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library.

  We recognise that working to meet these standards will be a gradual process and that effective implementation of the performance framework means phased implementation.

  ONE Pilots (Benefits)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what lessons he has drawn from the ONE pilots about the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit; and what new guidance to local authorities is being proposed. [12941]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The ONE evaluation did not focus on the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. This would have been impractical as there are wide variations in practices among local authorities in ONE pilot and control areas. However, research from the ONE pilots did show improvements to customer service arising from working in close partnership with local authorities. These partnerships will be a key requirement of Jobcentre Plus, and we will be discussing with local authorities how we can jointly guide and support our staff to deliver a cohesive, responsive service to our customers.

  Benefit Systems
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what representations he has received from local government ombudsmen in England, Wales and Scotland about the administrative complexity of the housing benefit and council tax benefit systems; [12947]

  (2) what plans he has to discuss with local government ombudsmen in England, Wales or Scotland the administrative complexity of the housing benefit/council tax system. [12948]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the last year, the Department has received two reports from the Local Government Ombudsman in England. One concerned Housing Benefit claim form NHB 1 which is produced by the Department; the other referred to an apparent ambiguity in the Department's guidance to local authorities on operating the Verification Framework. No representations have been received in respect of Wales or Scotland.

  Ministers and officials regularly meet with stakeholders in the Housing Benefit scheme and other interested parties to discuss issues of interest or concern. Such a meeting between one of our officials and one of the three Local Government Ombudsmen for England took place in April this year.

  Appeals Service (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the transition from housing benefit review boards to the Appeals Service. [12957]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Appeals Service took over responsibility for hearing Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit appeals on 2 July 2001. By the end of September, local authorities had submitted 1,484 appeals to our Appeals Service.

  Many local authorities have welcomed the introduction of tribunals. However, as the number of appeals which have passed through the new system is still low it is too early to reach any firm conclusion on the impact of the transition from review boards.

  Source:
  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System. Figures are provisional.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to fix housing benefit awards for set periods. [12949]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As with all benefits, we keep all aspects of Housing Benefit claims under review

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has made to simplify the non-dependent deduction scheme; [12950]

  (2) what plans he has to reform the rate at which housing benefit is withdrawn as earnings rise; [12954]

  (3) what plans he has about increasing earnings disregards for housing benefit. [12953]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We keep all matters relating to benefit under review. Our proposals in respect of Housing Benefit were set out in our policy statement "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all— The way forward for housing" (December 2000).

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the reform of the housing benefit extended payment scheme. [12952]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The reformed Housing Benefit extended payment scheme was introduced on 9 April 2001 and it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the new scheme. However, work in progress includes interviews with clients who have received extended payments since April 2001 and with staff responsible for administering and promoting the reformed scheme.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to simplify the rent limitations mechanism in the private rented sector; [12951]

  (2) what plans he has to reduce the number of transitional protection schemes that different housing benefit recipients are on. [12959]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From 2 July 2001 the definition of the Single Room Rent was broadened to reflect better the type of accommodation available in the market to young single people.
  788W
  Our response to consultation on the Housing Green Paper—"Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—The way forward for housing" (December 2000)—explained that we would look further at the scope for simplifying the different protection schemes which restrict Housing Benefit in the private rented sector. We have commissioned a research project to inform this work, which is now starting its fieldwork stage.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of the housing benefit verification framework on the increase in formal complaints of maladministration. [12956]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Formal complaints about maladministration of the Housing Benefit scheme are made to the Local Government Ombudsman. Information from the Local Government Ombudsman on the number of complaints where the Verification Framework has been cited as a contributory factor is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to divide the housing benefit caseload into age-related client groups. [12958]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are reforming the welfare system so that welfare services will meet the different needs of our client groups: pensioners, people of working age and children.

  We will ensure that the Housing Benefit scheme supports our strategy to transform the services we provide through the development of Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service. For those of working age, we intend to streamline the claims process to enable people to claim Housing Benefit at the same time as other benefits, without having to give the same information twice.

  And we are considering how Housing Benefit for pensioners should fit into the new, simplified framework of the Pension Credit from 2003.

  Integrated Inquiry Service
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the reasons for abandoning the Integrated Inquiry Service. [12943]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 242W.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what level of fees he expects to have to spend to commission alternative proposals to the Integrated Inquiry Service; and who has been commissioned to produce these proposals. [12955]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Affinity, the Department's lead IT service provider, has been commissioned at a cost of approximately £4,000 to explore the options for an alternative to the Integrated Inquiry Service.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Inquests
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) when the Legal
  789W
  Service Commission will publish its guidance on the circumstances in which legal aid funding may be made available for representation at inquests; and if he will make a statement; [12737]

  (2) when he plans to issue his consultation paper on the funding for representation at inquests; and if he will make a statement. [12738]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor recently authorised the Legal Services Commission to decide applications for exceptional funding in inquests without reference to Ministers. At the same time, new guidance has taken effect in which the Lord Chancellor slightly amended the way applications in inquests would be dealt with. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 856W. The Commission is preparing additional guidance for practitioners on the making of applications, which it intends to publish on 15 November in the next issue of "Focus". The text is already available on the Commission's website, www.legalservices.gov.uk. In the circumstances, we have no plans to issue a consultation document in the near future.

  Translation Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what translation services the Lord Chancellor ensures are available to courts in(a) England and (b) Staffordshire. [13499]

  Mr. Wills
  The Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) books and pays for interpreters where necessary for people attending IAA hearings. Within the criminal justice system, a national agreement for obtaining foreign language interpreters exists and applies equally to the Crown court, Court of Appeal and the magistrates courts. The agreement requires the courts to arrange and pay for an interpreter for the defendant.

  In the Supreme Court and county court, foreign language interpreters are provided free of charge for civil committal hearings and for hearings in cases involving children or domestic violence. Interpreters will be provided for other types of hearings if it can be shown that a failure to do so would interfere with the individual's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The county courts also use a national telephone interpreting service. Sign language interpreters and other forms of communication support are provided free of charge to any party that requires it. A number of different agencies, national and local, are used to arrange this support.

  All these arrangements apply equally to England and Wales. There is no regional breakdown of the service provided.

  In all courts it is the responsibility of the parties involved in the case to arrange for the translation of documents.

  Departmental Projects
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the projects in his Department which have been considered as potential public-private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector 790W
  comparator had a lower net present value than the public-private partnership proposed; and if he will make a statement. [13434]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 607W by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Lord Chancellor's Department has not rejected any proposed public-private partnership for the reason stated in the hon. Member's question.

HEALTH

  Biological Agents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency plans he has developed to protect the public against anthrax, botulism and attacks with other biological agents; and if he will make a statement. [11894]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has extensive contingency planning in place. This includes arrangements to mitigate the effects of a terrorist act and to ensure response and recovery in conjunction with other Government Departments, the National Health Service and key public health agencies. Stocks of vaccine and antibiotics are available.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service has issued interim guidance, for healthcare professionals and the public, on the deliberate release of a number of biological agents including anthrax, smallpox, botulism and plague and this is available on their website.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public health measures there are to deal with large-scale anthrax contamination in the UK; and what consideration has been given to the use of a vaccination. [13483]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: Plans are in place to enable appropriate measures to be taken to protect the health of the United Kingdom population, should such an attack occur, or be suspected. These plans are under constant development and review. Interim guidelines for action in the event of a deliberate release of anthrax can be found on the website of the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  Anthrax vaccine is currently only given to the public for protection against occupational exposure where this is considered likely to occur.

  Breast Screening
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measure she is taking to assess the efficacy of the breast screening programme. [12863]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is the role of the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening (ACBCS) to consider all research papers published on the subject of breast cancer screening. The national health service breast screening programme is kept under constant re-examination and vigilance. The ACBCS met on 31 October 2001, and in light of recent publications in the medical journals, agreed
  791W
  to review the evidence in the Forrest Report', on which the NHS breast screening programme was based. The committee last reviewed this evidence formally in 1991.

  The review will be led by Professor Valerie Beral, Chair of the committee, in conjunction with the Institute of Cancer Research and the NHS cancer screening programmes. A first draft of the report will be presented at the committee's next meeting on 15 May 2002.

  1 Breast Cancer Screening Report to the Health Ministers of England, Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland by a working group chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest (HMSO 2986).

  Waiting Times (Bath)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on trends in waiting times for(a) orthopaedic out patient appointments and (b) orthopaedic operations at the Royal United hospital, Bath in the last 12 months. [12856]

  Ms Blears
  The latest published information shows that in the year to the end of September 2001 the percentage of patients waiting for orthopaedic inpatient and day case treatment who were seen in under 12 months remained the same. The proportion of orthopaedic outpatients who have waited over 26 weeks has increased over the same period.

  The Royal United hospital, Bath national health service trust is taking a number of measures to ensure that the number of patients who have to 'wait for an outpatient appointment or for treatment is reduced. The number of orthopaedic clinics is being increased and an additional 1,000 new patients will be seen between now and the end of March 2002. This action is designed to ensure that no patients are waiting over 26 weeks for an outpatient appointment by the end of March 2002.

  The trust is also taking measures to ensure that the number of patients waiting over 12 months for inpatient or day case treatment is reduced in line with the Government's target. An additional orthopaedic consultant will be appointed shortly. An additional three orthopaedic recovery beds opened at the end of October providing high care for patients following major surgery. Eighteen extra beds have also been opened on a temporary basis at St. Martin's hospital for the rehabilitation of orthopaedic patients. Additional weekend elective orthopaedic operating lists have been running throughout this year. The trust has already commissioned 100 orthopaedic cases at the local private hospital and is making arrangements with the private sector for an additional 400 patients to be seen this year.

  Nurses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were(a) employed by the NHS, (b) recruited and (c) left the NHS in (i) 1993, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2001. [13379]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of nurses employed by the National Health Service in 1993, 1997 and 2000 is shown in the table.

  A new system of classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Therefore, the figure given for 1993 is not comparable with those collected after this date.
  792W
  Information regarding the number of nurses recruited into and leaving the NHS is not collected centrally.

  Hospital and community health service qualified nursing,midwifery and health visiting staff including practice nurses as at 30 September

  Year

  Headcount

  1993

  310,900

  1997

  318,860

  2000

  335,950

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the in-patient waiting list is, expressed as per 1,000 head of weighted population, for(a) each health authority and (b) in total in England for the last two years for which figures are available. [13617]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of in-patients waiting at end March 2001 and March 2000 are shown in the table, (March 2001 data are the most recent data available).

  In-patient waiting list per 1,000 head of weighted population

  Health authority

  March 2001

  March 2000

  Avon

  20.7

  20.9

  Barking and Havering

  24.8

  25.8

  Barnet

  15.8

  15.8

  Barnsley

  17.2

  16.9

  Bedfordshire

  19.8

  18.5

  Berkshire

  18.9

  18.8

  Bexley and Greenwich

  17.0

  19.0

  Birmingham

  12.8

  12.7

  Bradford

  19.3

  19.9

  Brent and Harrow

  17.1

  17.6

  Bromley

  20.8

  22.0

  Buckinghamshire

  21.8

  20.7

  Bury and Rochdale

  22.1

  22.9

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  16.8

  18.9

  Cambridgeshire

  21.0

  21.5

  Camden and Islington

  10.5

  12.1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  24.6

  25.1

  County Durham and Darlington

  16.5

  17.4

  Coventry

  13.3

  12.8

  Croydon

  20.0

  19.3

  Doncaster

  12.1

  12.5

  Dorset

  12.7

  13.3

  Dudley

  16.5

  14.5

  East and North Hertfordshire

  24.4

  26.3

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  16.6

  18.0

  East Kent

  26.6

  27.0

  East Lancashire

  21.2

  22.0

  East London and City

  14.4

  14.4

  East Riding and Hull

  20.1

  20.4

  East Surrey

  22.9

  24.4

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  23.2

  23.7

  Enfield and Haringey

  19.9

  19.7

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  18.5

  19.8

  Gloucestershire

  15.1

  16.0

  Herefordshire

  16.9

  19.1

  Hillingdon

  15.5

  15.2

  Isle of Wight

  24.8

  25.7

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  8.5

  9.2

  Kingston and Richmond

  20.7

  18.6

  793W

  In-patient waiting list per 1,000 head of weighted population

  Health authority

  March 2001

  March 2000

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  17.9

  19.2

  Leeds

  18.4

  19.1

  Leicestershire

  18.8

  18.5

  Lincolnshire

  24.3

  25.4

  Liverpool

  20.1

  20.9

  Manchester

  20.4

  21.2

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  15.1

  15.3

  Morecambe Bay

  20.3

  20.0

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  13.9

  15.0

  Norfolk

  25.8

  25.4

  North and East Devon

  23.7

  23.3

  North and Mid Hampshire

  22.3

  22.3

  North Cheshire

  28.4

  27.4

  North Cumbria

  22.5

  23.1

  North Derbyshire

  22.1

  23.1

  North Essex

  25.6

  27.3

  North Nottinghamshire

  19.2

  19.8

  North Staffordshire

  10.7

  13.4

  North West Lancashire

  22.2

  22.9

  North Yorkshire

  18.7

  21.1

  Northamptonshire

  25.9

  25.7

  Northumberland

  15.4

  15.9

  Nottingham

  16.7

  18.1

  Oxfordshire

  19.2

  19.1

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  20.6

  19.7

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  22.5

  23.8

  Rotherham

  14.4

  14.3

  Salford and Trafford

  24.0

  25.8

  Sandwell

  13.2

  13.6

  Sefton

  24.9

  25.2

  Sheffield

  17.8

  18.0

  Shropshire

  16.9

  17.1

  Solihull

  17.6

  17.8

  Somerset

  24.2

  24.7

  South and West Devon

  21.8

  23.1

  South Cheshire

  21.7

  21.7

  South Essex

  24.1

  24.1

  South Humber

  24.0

  27.6

  South Lancashire

  28.2

  29.3

  South Staffordshire

  24.6

  25.3

  Southampton and South West Hamptonshire

  26.4

  28.1

  Southern Derbyshire

  21.9

  22.4

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  23.3

  23.6

  Stockport

  23.8

  24.0

  Suffolk

  24.2

  24.0

  Sunderland

  18.3

  18.4

  Tees

  17.6

  17.0

  Wakefield

  19.7

  21.2

  Walsall

  9.7

  9.5

  Warwickshire

  22.2

  22.4

  West Hertfordshire

  20.0

  20.6

  West Kent

  26.5

  28.3

  West Pennine

  25.2

  25.3

  West Surrey

  25.7

  27.1

  West Sussex

  25.1

  26.2

  Wigan and Bolton

  21.2

  22.7

  Wiltshire

  22.0

  24.8

  Wirral

  14.0

  14.0

  Wolverhampton

  13.9

  14.3

  Worcestershire

  20.0

  20.6

  England

  20.0

  20.6

  Note:

  Population is weighted for age, additional need (over and above that accounted for by age) and variations in the unavoidable cost of providing healthcare (market forces factor etc.)

  Source:

  QF01 waiti8ng times returns/FD Resource Allocation 2 population data

  Cancelled Operations
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) cancelled operations in total, (b) operations cancelled on the day of operation and
  794W
  (c) operations cancelled and not readmitted within one month there were in each health authority in England in each quarter during the last two years for which figures are available. [13611]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest published figures are for quarter one 2001–02. Copies of quarterly statistics on cancelled operations by health authority for the last two years are available in the Library.

  Data are collected on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute. Data are not broken down into whether the operation was cancelled on the day of surgery or the day of admission to hospital.

  Rural Recruitment (Consultants)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to recruit(a) general consultants and (b) consultants in neurology in rural areas. [13492]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS plan states there will be 7,500 more consultants in post in 2004 than in 1999. By September 2000 the number of consultants in post had already increased by 1,100 to around 24,300. The national health service is currently drawing up plans by specialty to deliver the rest of the increase, a further 6,400 posts by 2004. We will ensure that these plans target areas of the country which are under-doctored relative to their weighted population.

  In 2000 the number of consultant neurologists was 688, an increase of 31 (4.7 per cent.) over 1999. As well as the NHS plan consultant increases we aim to achieve a 54 per cent. expansion in training neurology specialists by 2010.

  Private Treatment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many private beds were available in each of the last five years; [13602]

  (2) how many private hospitals there were in each of the last five years. [13601]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table sets out the number of independent acute medical and surgical hospitals and beds in the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2001.

  Hospitals

  Beds

  1997

  227

  11.100

  1998

  229

  10,852

  1999

  228

  10,565

  2000

  225

  9.980

  2001

  222

  9,834

  Source:

  Laing's Healthcare Market Review 2001–2001, Laing and Buisson

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been admitted to NHS hospitals from non-NHS hospitals in the last five years. [13604]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table sets out the number of admissions from non-national health service run hospitals to NHS trusts in England, 1995–96 to 1999–2000.
  795W

  Year

  Admissions

  1995–96

  121,160

  1996–97

  5,153

  1997–98

  7,050

  1998–99

  7,241

  1999–2000

  6,934

  1 A breakdown by type of non-NHS institution was not available prior to 1996–97, so the figure for 1995–96 is for total admissions to NHS trusts from non-NHS institutions, including, but not exclusively, hospitals.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Chiropodists and Podiatrists
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if chiropodists and podiatrists in private practice will be represented on the Health Professions Council; and if he will make a statement. [13729]

  Mr. Hutton
  All registered professionals, whether they work in the private sector or not, will be represented on the new council. The council will also be able to recruit additional members to its committees including its professional advisory panels, and will be encouraged to cover all sectors of the professions.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if podiatrists and chiropodists in private practice will be recognised for the purposes of state registration; and if he will make a statement. [13730]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new Health Professions Council will determine arrangements for the admission to its register for each of the professions it regulates. Chiropodists and podiatrists who meet the council's standards for registration will be recognised as state registered.

  Special transitional arrangements will enable those whose training and competence do not meet the council's standards to be recognised for registration purposes.

  Contaminated Blood Transfusions
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the Scottish Executive's Health and Community Care Committee regarding financial assistance to haemophilia sufferers infected with hepatitis C as a result of receiving contaminated blood transfusions. [13700]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: The devolved Administration in Scotland is considering these recommendations. We currently have no plans to compensate haemophiliacs who become infected with hepatitis C through national health service blood products.

  NHS (Overseas Staff)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of how many(a) refugees and (b) those with special immigration status with medical qualifications have been prevented from working in the national health service by their inability to speak English to an adequate level in the last five years. [14315]

  Mr. Hutton
  All doctors from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) need to pass the International English Language Testing Service (IELTS) test before they can be registered with the General Medical Council (GMC). The majority of doctors who took their primary medical qualification outside the EEA also need to pass the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) test of medical and linguistic competence before registration is granted.

  Passing the PLAB test is a pre-condition of registration for those doctors required to take it. Doctors are entitled to five attempts at the test. Those who fail it five times are prevented from registering with the GMC, and thus prevented from practising medicine in the national health service.

  The GMC's records do not show how many of the doctors who fail the PLAB test five times are, in fact, from the refugee community. There is therefore no way of telling whether any refugee doctor has been prevented from getting work in the NHS by his or her ability to speak English.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the contribution that could be made to the national health service by(a) refugees and (b) those with special immigration status holding medical qualifications. [14314]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS plan holds a commitment to provide extra doctors to the national health service, and we believe it makes moral and economic sense to use the skills of doctors in the refugee community to the best advantage of the NHS.

  A Government funded database, developed and run by the Refugee Council and the British Medical Association, shows that there are nearly 400 refugee doctors who want information about retraining to work in the United Kingdom. More are expected to come forward as word gets around about the availability of Government funded counselling and training to help those wanting careers in the NHS becomes more widely understood.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Rights
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which categories of person having regard to age, marital status, duration of residence in the UK, immigration status, nationality and other characteristics, are eligible for(a) free statutory-age schooling, (b) free nursery education, (c) free education in colleges of further education and (d) education in higher education institutions, free other than through contributions to home students' tuition fees. [7951]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: Any child of compulsory school age living in England is entitled to free education. All four-year-olds are entitled to three terms of free, good quality, part-time nursery education before they reach compulsory school age regardless of duration of residence in the UK, immigration status, nationality or any other characteristics.

  Three-year-olds are entitled to a free, good quality, part-time nursery education place depending on their age and their local early years development and childcare partnership's allocation criteria. Early years development and childcare partnerships must allocate places based on social need.

  The Learning and Skills Council is responsible for determining when tuition fees are to be charged for further education courses. Advice to institutions for the current academic year is that, subject to residency requirements, tuition fees should not be charged to any learner aged 16 to 18 on either a full-time or part-time course. Other groups not charged tuition fees include: those receiving jobseekers' allowance (JSA); those receiving a means-tested state benefit; unwaged dependants (as defined by the Benefits Agency) of those listed above; people on adult basic education or English for speakers of other languages programmes; asylum seekers in receipt of the equivalent of a means-tested benefit (assistance under the terms of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act), and their dependants; and, certain learners participating in Council funded projects (only where identified in the project specification).

  Higher education institutions, as independent, self-governing bodies, decide whether to charge students tuition fees at the 'home' rate or the higher 'overseas' rate using the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1997, (as amended). To be eligible for home fee status, students usually need to have 'settled status' in the UK and have been ordinarily resident here for three years before their course starts, except where this was solely or mainly to receive full-time education. Students meeting these requirements will be classed as "home" students for tuition fee purposes. Broadly speaking, these will include, in most cases, UK and other European Union students, students with recognised refugee status, other students granted the right to enter or remain and who meet the UK residence requirement, and migrant workers from the European Economic Area. Students not meeting these requirements may be charged fees at the 'overseas' rate.

  Early Excellence Centres
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the location of the early excellence centres which(a) are in operation, (b) are in the process of implementation and (c) are planned, and what are the criteria for locations to be included in each element of the programme. [14132]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The Early Excellence Centre (EEC) programme is at the forefront of our policies to develop practice in integrated care, education and family services.

  (a) The early excellence centres which are in operation are in:

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Camden

  Coventry

  Cumbria

  Cornwall

  Derbyshire

  Gateshead

  Greenwich

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hampshire

  Haringey

  Hertfordshire

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newham

  North Tyneside

  North East Lincolnshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Oxfordshire

  Portsmouth

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Rotherham

  Sheffield (2)

  Somerset

  Stockport

  South Tyneside

  St. Helens

  Westminster

  Wirral

  (b) On 1 October we announced 14 new centres in Birmingham, Cornwall, Derby, Hackney, Herefordshire, Hillingdon, Islington, Kingston-upon-Thames, Lewisham, Rotherham, Surrey, Wirral and two projects working with the NHS, newborn hearing screening programme (NHSP) in Stockport and Waltham Forest. We are working with these centres to implement their proposals. At the same time we are continuing to receive further expressions of interest in joining the programme and to discuss with a number of individual centres how their plans could be developed further.
  799W
  (c) Working closely with sure start and neighbourhood nurseries, we plan to have up to 100 centres across the country by 2004. The criteria for joining the programme are set out in the latest invitation to join the programme sent to all local authorities, early years development and childcare partnerships and other partners on 1 October. Location is not the prime criterion: quality of provision is, but our plans for the programme do include achieving good geographic spread.

  Teachers (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 5 November 2001, to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough,Official Report, column 54W, on teachers from ethnic minorities, how many teachers from ethnic minorities have (a) started training, (b) completed training and (c) started teaching, for the last two years for which figures are available. [14616]

  Mr. Timms
  The Teacher Training Agency's (ITA) performance profiles collects information about initial teacher trainees at institutions in England. The most recent figures relate to the academic year 1999–2000. The following table shows the numbers and relevant proportions of first year trainees from an ethnic minority in the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Number of first year trainees

  Year

  From an ethnic minority

  Ethnicity undisclosed

  1998–99

  1,634 (6%)

  1,951 (7%)

  1999–2000

  1,701 (7%)

  934 (4%)

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency, Performance Profiles

  The TTA's Performance Profiles also collect information relating to final year trainees. The most recent figures relate to final year trainees in academic year 1999–2000. The following table shows the numbers and relevant proportions of trainees awarded qualified teacher status (QTS) that are from an ethnic minority for final year trainees in 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Number of final year trainees awarded QTS

  Year

  From an ethnic minority

  Ethnicity undisclosed

  1998–99

  1,388 (6%)

  1,940(8%)

  1999–2000

  1,260 (6%)

  901 (4%)

  Note:

  Figures relate to the numbers of trainees that gained QTS by 31 July of their final year of training (i.e July 2000 for final year trainees in 1999–2000)

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency, Performance Profiles

  The TTA's performance profiles also collects information about the movements of final year trainees that gain QTS into the teaching profession. The following table shows the numbers and relevant proportions of trainees that were awarded QTS and were subsequently recorded as entering a teaching post in England, that are from an ethnic minority.
  800W

  Number of final year trainees awarded QTS and entered teaching

  Year

  From an ethnic minority

  Ethnicity undisclosed

  1998–99

  1,027 (6%)

  1,509 (8%)

  1999–2000

  959 (5%)

  692 (4%)

  Note:

  Figures relate to the numbers of qualified trainees that were in a teaching post by 3 January following their final year of training (i.e. January 2001 for final year trainees in 1999–2000).

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency, Performance Profiles

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the teacher vacancy rate was in(a) nursery/ primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) all schools in (i) the constituency of South Suffolk, (ii) the constituency of West Suffolk (iii) the constituency of Ipswich, (iv) the constituency of Suffolk, Coastal, (v) the constituency of Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North, (vi) the constituency of Bury St. Edmunds, (vii) Suffolk local education authority, (viii) East Anglia and (ix) England in (A) 1997–98, (B) 1998–99, (C) 1999–2000 and (D) 2000–01. [11575]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Information on teacher vacancies by constituency is not collected centrally. Teacher vacancy rates in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools sector from 1998 to 2001, in Suffolk, the east of England government office region and England were as follows:

  Percentage

  January 1998

  January 1999

  January 2000

  January 2001

  Nursery and primary

  Suffolk

  0.4

  0.7

  0.4

  2.2

  East of England

  0.7

  0.8

  0.9

  1.7

  England

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  1.2

  Secondary

  Suffolk

  0.5

  0.6

  0.4

  1.6

  East of England

  0.7

  0.7

  0.8

  1.7

  England

  0.6

  0.5

  0.7

  1.4

  Maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector

  Suffolk

  0.5

  0.8

  0.5

  1.8

  East of England

  0.8

  0.8

  0.9

  1.7

  England

  0.7

  0.7

  0.8

  1.4

  Foreign National Teachers (Surrey)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many foreign nationals were employed as(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers in Surrey during the (i) 2000–01 academic year and (ii) previous four academic years. [11193]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The information is not held centrally.

  Teacher Vacancies (Surrey)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary teacher vacancies there were in Surrey on 1 September in each year since 1997. [11191]
  801W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The information is not available in the form requested. Nursery, primary and secondary full-time teacher vacancies in Surrey in January of each year since 1997, reported by the local education authority, were as follows:

  Year

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  1997

  18

  19

  1998

  27

  14

  1999

  11

  9

  2000

  13

  24

  2001

  25

  62

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has issued to schools regarding assessment of teachers for the upper spine of performance-related pay. [14565]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The Department's guidance on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Employment 2001 includes a section entitled "Threshold and Upper Pay Scale" and Annexe A includes a section entitled "Handling Performance Pay". The Secretary of State will soon launch a consultation on the mechanism for specific funding to contribute towards the cost to schools of awarding performance pay points to teachers.

  Purpose

  Average duration (days)

  Average cost (£)

  Attending Social Affairs Council Meeting x 25

  1

  1,600

  Attending Education Council Meeting x 7

  2

  1,000

  Attending OECD Conference Meeting x 6

  1

  1,400

  Attending G8 Conference x 5

  4

  6,350

  Attending ILO Conference x 4

  2

  1,100

  Attending Youth Council Meeting x 4

  1

  800

  Attending Higher Education Conference x 4

  3

  1,050

  Attending UNESCO Conference x 2

  1

  1,000

  Promoting Higher Education and Vocational Education x 2

  8

  10,600

  Attending Skills Olympics x 2

  4

  4,400

  Promoting Education Exports x 2

  8

  10,900

  Attending European Higher Education Meeting x 2

  2

  925

  Attending Meeting of Employment and Social Policy Council x 2

  2

  1,600

  Purpose

  Duration (days)

  Cost (£)

  Attending Commonwealth Ministers Conference

  8

  15,600

  Meeting to discuss Disability and New Deal Schemes

  4

  11,000

  Attending Meeting with French Minister

  1

  850

  Promoting Apprenticeship Schemes (BMW)

  1

  1,200

  Attending European Employment Week Conference

  1

  550

  Attending Meeting with Swedish Labour Minister

  1

  1,050

  Attending Meeting with Dutch Minister

  1

  850

  Attending European Policy Conference

  2

  550

  Attending Meetings with Representatives of the European Parliament

  1

  950

  Attending Meeting with European Ministers

  1

  2,400

  Attending Labour Standards Symposium

  1

  900

  Attending Meeting with Spanish Ministers of Education and Employment

  1

  1,650

  Attending Equal Opportunities Conference

  4

  2,050

  Attending EU Employment Ministers Conference

  3

  2,000

  Attending School Reform Conference

  4

  8,450

  Attending Disability Conference

  1

  750

  Delivering Speech to Quandt Foundation

  1

  750

  Attending Meeting to Discuss National Parliaments Action Plans

  1

  700

  Attending Joint EC and Eastern Europe Education Council

  3

  1,150

  Teachers (Maintained Schools)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of permanent teaching posts in maintained schools which were not filled on the first day of the current term; and what percentage this is of the total number of permanent teaching posts. [7490]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: It is estimated, based on a telephone survey conducted on 6–7 September 2001, that there were about 2,000 full-time vacancies (0.6 per cent. of posts) in nursery, primary and secondary schools.

  These figures were obtained from a telephone survey of nearly 1,500 schools conducted by DfES. Teacher vacancies are measured using the standard DfES definition, which excludes posts filled by a full-time teacher on a contract of one term or more.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her written answer of 7 November 2001,Official Report, columns 245–46W, on ministerial travel, what was the (a) purpose, (b) duration and (c) cost of each of the ministerial visits. [14569]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The purpose, duration and cost of each of the ministerial visits since 1 May 1997 are set out in the following tables. Recurrent meetings are given in the first table; one off trips in the second.
  803W

  Purpose

  Duration (days)

  Cost (£)

  Meeting to Discuss European Voluntary Service Conciliation

  1

  1,200

  Attending Anglo-Italian Seminar

  1

  1,250

  Attending European Commission Annual Forum

  1

  1,450

  Attending Human Rights Conference

  10

  23,450

  Attending Bilaterals with Education and Employment Ministers

  1

  2,300

  Attendance at Lifelong Learning Conference

  3

  8,950

  Attending Anglo-Spanish Employment Conference

  2

  1,300

  Attending Education Conference

  2

  650

  Attending BTI Conference

  1

  5,500

  Attending Education and Employment Conference

  1

  3,200

  Participating in Education Bilateral

  1

  1,550

  Promoting Education and Training

  7

  7,700

  Attending Meeting with EU Labour Ministers

  2

  0

  Attending People and Politics Seminar

  1

  750

  Attending Head Teachers Conference

  1

  450

  Visiting Centre for Income and Work

  1

  950

  Attending Conference and Undertaking School Visits

  11

  9,900

  Attending Meeting with Finnish Ministers

  1

  1,550

  Attending Meeting with Polish Employment Ministers

  1

  1,400

  Attending Meeting of Social Affairs Ministers

  2

  1,850

  Attending Meetings on Disability, Childcare and Equal Opportunities

  7

  11,900

  Attending Meetings with EU and Central and Eastern European Ministers

  2

  650

  Promoting Modern Apprenticeships

  2

  1,800

  Attending CERI Governing Board Meeting and Conference on Harnessing the Potential

  1

  1,100

  Attending Welfare to Work Conference

  8

  12,600

  Attending Meeting for Portuguese Presidency

  2

  650

  Attending "One" Workshop

  1

  900

  Attending Europe Globalisation and Future of Social Policy Conference

  1

  1,450

  Attending European School Net Conference

  1

  250

  Attending World Social Summit

  1

  1,400

  Attending Work. Culture and Identity Conference

  1

  1,250

  Attending Meeting with Swedish Employment Ministers

  1

  1,050

  Attending Ageism Conference

  1

  950

  Attending Conference for Finnish Presidency

  2

  650

  Attending European Diversity in the Workplace Conference

  4

  1,050

  Attending NAHT Annual Conference

  1

  850

  Attending Meeting to Discuss Anglo-Sino Education Agreement

  7

  20,300

  Attending Meeting with Russian Education Ministers

  4

  4,050

  Meeting with British Council and Undertaking School Visits

  6

  11,350

  Meeting to Discuss Article 13

  1

  750

  Promoting Early Years Providers

  4

  2,400

  Attending Ministers Conference in France

  1

  500

  Attending Learning Communities Conference

  8

  6,600

  Attending Middle East Education and Labour Conference

  4

  4,800

  Promoting Early Years and Employment Programme

  2

  2,600

  Attending EU Education and Employment Conference

  2

  850

  Attending Education Conference

  6

  9,850

  Attending EU, Latin American and Caribbean Conference

  1

  950

  Attending Mobility Meeting

  1

  450

  Undertaking Visit to Institute of Florence

  2

  600

  Forum on Education and Employment

  1

  350

  Promoting British Education System

  8

  12,050

  Attending Meeting with British Council

  2

  700

  Attending Work Life Balance Conference

  1

  1,500

  Promoting Education, Employment and Training

  1

  3,950

  Attending Meeting with EU Education Ministers

  2

  900

  Attending Meetings of Ministers for Telecommunications and Employment

  1

  2,600

  Attending Meeting with Higher Education Ministers

  1

  700

  Attending Club 3 Conference

  2

  500

  Attending NASUWT Conference

  1

  650

  Attending EU Education and Youth Conference

  1

  500

  Attending Meeting to Discuss the Delivery of Employment Services

  1

  550

  Attending EU Education Ministers Conference

  2

  2,950

  Attending ICT Conference

  4

  250

  Note:

  All travel complied with the requirements of the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers".
  804W

  Staff Retention (Secondary Schools)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the rates of staff retention in(a) secondary schools with sixth forms and (b) secondary schools without sixth forms. [14559]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This information is not held centrally.

  Qualified Teacher Status
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her written answer of 31 October

  (full-time equivalents)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Teachers on routes to QTS1

  460

  570

  470

  580

  1,280

  Instructors and other teachers without QTS2

  2,480

  2,640

  3,070

  3,240

  4,340

  Total

  2,940

  3,220

  3,540

  3,820

  5,620

  1 Those on the graduate teacher programme, registered teacher programme, licensed teacher scheme and overseas trained teacher scheme

  2 Includes overseas-trained teachers employed on contracts of at least one month and not currently seeking QTS.

  Note:

  Totals may not equal the sum of their component parts due to rounding. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  When deciding whether to employ an instructor without QTS, headteachers take into account the fact that they can often bring valuable skills and experience to the classroom, particularly in subjects that have a high practical content. Instructors also include teachers without qualifications obtained overseas who are not currently seeking QTS.

  There were 410,200 regular teachers in maintained schools in England in January 2001, 11,000 more than in January 1997.

  Overseas Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates she has made of the number of teachers in maintained schools who were not British citizens in each term of the last four years. [7271]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Information on teachers who are not British citizens is not collected centrally.

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (percentage)1

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (percentage)1

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (percentage)1

  Cambridgeshire

  January2

  19963

  3

  0.1

  10

  0.4

  13

  0.3

  19973

  2

  0.1

  4

  0.2

  6

  0.1

  19983

  1

  0.0

  6

  0.3

  7

  0.1

  1999

  1

  0.1

  0

  0.0

  1

  0.0

  2000

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  2001

  2

  0.1

  1

  0.1

  3

  0.1

  Peterborough

  January2

  19963

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  19973

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  19983

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  0

  0.0

  2

  0.3

  2

  0.1

  2000

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  2001

  3

  0.5

  4

  0.6

  7

  0.5

  806W
  2001, Official Report, column 714W, how many full-time equivalent teachers there were without qualified teacher status in maintained schools in each of the last five years, broken down by (a) those on the graduate teacher programme, (b) those on the registered teacher programme, (c) those on the licensed teacher programme, (d) those on the overseas trained teacher scheme, (e) instructors and (f) other teachers without QTS. [12424]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The number of teachers on each of the programmes specified are not identified separately. Numbers of teachers without qualified teacher status (QTS) working in the maintained schools sector in England between January 1997 and January 2001 were as follows:

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many overseas teachers employed in maintained schools are not covered by the overseas trained teacher scheme. [12364]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Teachers (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary teacher vacancies there were in Huntingdon (i) on 31 March and (ii) in each year since 1996. [6163]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: The information requested for Huntingdon is not held centrally.

  Full-time vacancies for teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in the former Cambridgeshire local authority area were as follows:
  807W

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (percentage)1

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (percentage)1

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (percentage)1

  Total

  January2

  19963

  3

  0.1

  10

  0.4

  13

  0.3

  19973

  2

  0.1

  4

  0.2

  6

  0.1

  19983

  1

  0.0

  6

  0.3

  7

  0.1

  1999

  1

  0.0

  2

  0.1

  3

  0.1

  2000

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  2001

  5

  0.2

  5

  0.2

  10

  0.2

  1 The vacancy rate is calculated by dividing the number of vacancies by the sum of full-time qualified regular teachers plus teachers on full-time secondment for a term or more

  2 Details of teacher vacancies at 31 March of each year are not available

  3 Cambridgeshire local authority was affected by the local government re-organisation (LGR) on 1 April 1998, when it became two authorities, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Figures for 1996 to 1998 are for the Cambridgeshire local authority prior to LGR

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers were employed in Huntingdon (i) on 31 March and (ii) in each year since 1996. [6164]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: The information requested for Huntingdon is not held centrally.

  Full-time equivalents of regular teachers (excluding short term supply) employed in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in the former Cambridgeshire local authority area were as follows:

  January1

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Cambridgeshire2

  Nursery/primary

  2,740

  2,690

  2,600

  1,950

  1,990

  2,040

  Secondary

  2,630

  2,500

  2,570

  1,800

  1,810

  1,840

  Total

  5,360

  5,190

  5,170

  3,740

  3,790

  3,880

  Peterborough

  Nursery/primary

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  680

  720

  720

  Secondary

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  810

  820

  730

  Total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,490

  1,540

  1,450

  Thousand

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Men

  Under 25

  1.9

  1.8

  1.7

  1.9

  2.3

  2.7

  2.8

  2.9

  3.0

  2.9

  2.7

  25–29

  9.3

  9.0

  8.9

  8.8

  9.2

  9.9

  10.6

  11.4

  12.3

  12.5

  12.6

  30–34

  16.1

  14.2

  12.9

  12.2

  12.0

  11.9

  12.0

  12.2

  12.4

  12.7

  13.0

  35–39

  29.3

  26.2

  23.3

  20.8

  18.6

  16.9

  15.3

  14.3

  13.6

  13.2

  13.2

  40–44

  33.5

  34.5

  33.3

  31.9

  30.6

  28.3

  25.8

  23.3

  20.9

  18.5

  16.8

  45–49

  21.1

  22.0

  25.0

  27.5

  29.1

  30.6

  32.0

  31.1

  29.8

  28.4

  26.1

  49–54

  14.2

  13.8

  13.9

  14.3

  14.4

  15.2

  15.6

  17.2

  18.3

  21.1

  23.3

  55–59

  7.7

  7.2

  7.1

  6.8

  6.3

  6.1

  5.7

  5.3

  5.1

  6.1

  7.2

  60–64

  2.4

  2.2

  2.0

  2.0

  1.6

  1.4

  1.3

  1.2

  1.1

  1.1

  1.1

  65 and over

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  Women

  Under 25

  10.1

  9.3

  9.1

  9.5

  10.6

  11.9

  12.4

  13.3

  14.0

  13.6

  13.8

  25–29

  26.8

  27.5

  28.5

  29.5

  30.6

  31.9

  33.4

  35.8

  38.5

  40.5

  42.2

  30–34

  27.6

  25.0

  23.4

  22.5

  22.7

  24.0

  25.4

  26.9

  27.8

  28.5

  29.2

  35–39

  41.9

  40.4

  38.2

  35.5

  32.6

  29.7

  27.0

  24.9

  23.4

  22.9

  23.3

  40–44

  48.3

  51.1

  52.0

  52.0

  51.5

  50.0

  47.7

  44.9

  41.8

  37.7

  34.0

  45–49

  35.7

  36.6

  40.7

  44.2

  47.1

  50.4

  53.5

  54.2

  53.8

  53.2

  51.1

  49–54

  28.5

  27.4

  27.0

  27.3

  27.4

  28.4

  29.1

  31.6

  33.2

  37.4

  41.1

  55–59

  15.7

  15.1

  14.9

  14.7

  13.9

  13.6

  12.8

  11.8

  11.3

  12.9

  14.5

  60–64

  3.0

  3.0

  2.9

  2.8

  2.6

  2.4

  2.2

  2.1

  1.9

  1.9

  1.9

  65 and over

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  808W

  January1

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  Nursery/primary

  2,740

  2,690

  2,600

  2,630

  2,710

  2,760

  Secondary

  2,630

  2,500

  2,570

  2,600

  2,630

  2,570

  Total

  5,360

  5,190

  5,170

  5,230

  5,340

  5,330

  1 Details of teachers in service at 31 March of each year are not available.

  2 Cambridgeshire local authority was affected by the local government re-organisation (LGR) on 1 April 1998, when it became two authorities, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Figures for 1996 to 1998 are for the Cambridgeshire local authority prior to LGR.

  Teachers (Age Profile)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) male and (b) female teachers in each year between 1990 and 2001 were aged (i) under 25, (ii) 25 to 29, (iii) 30 to 34. (iv) 35 to 39, (v) 40 to 44, (vi) 45 to 49, (vii) 50 to 54, (viii) 55 to 59, (ix) 60 to 64, (x) 65 years plus and (xi) unknown. [7973]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Full-time regular teachers in the maintained schools sector of England, excluding sixth form colleges, 1990 to 2000 (the last year for which data of teacher characteristics are available), by sex and age, are shown in the table1
  809W

  Thousand

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Men and women

  Under 25

  12.0

  11.1

  10.8

  11.4

  12.9

  14.5

  15.2

  16.2

  17.1

  16.5

  16.5

  25–29

  36.2

  36.4

  37.4

  38.4

  39.9

  41.9

  43.9

  47.1

  50.8

  52.9

  54.8

  30–34

  43.7

  39.2

  36.3

  37.4

  34.6

  35.9

  37.4

  39.2

  40.3

  41.2

  42.2

  35–39

  71.2

  66.6

  61.5

  56.3

  51.2

  46.6

  42.3

  39.2

  37.0

  36.1

  36.5

  40–44

  81.8

  85.6

  85.3

  83.9

  82.0

  78.2

  73.6

  68.2

  62.7

  56.2

  50.7

  45–49

  56.8

  58.6

  65.7

  71.7

  76.2

  81.0

  85.5

  85.3

  83.5

  81.6

  77.1

  49–54

  42.7

  41.2

  40.8

  41.5

  41.8

  43.7

  44.7

  48.8

  51.5

  58.5

  64.5

  55–59

  23.4

  22.3

  21.9

  21.5

  20.2

  19.6

  18.5

  17.0

  16.5

  19.0

  21.7

  60–64

  5.4

  5.2

  5.0

  4.7

  4.2

  3.8

  3.4

  3.2

  3.1

  3.0

  3.0

  65 and over

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Age and sex not known2

  0.0

  2.8

  1.8

  4.0

  5.5

  4.3

  4.3

  3.5

  3.2

  2.6

  2.9

  Part-time (fte) 2,3

  24.2

  25.5

  27.2

  27.5

  28.5

  29.9

  30.8

  31.2

  32.0

  33.3

  34.7

  Full-time and part-time (fte)

  397.6

  394.8

  394.0

  395.9

  397.0

  399.6

  399.8

  399.2

  397.7

  401.2

  404.6

  1 Totals may not be the sum of the component parts because of rounding

  2 For 1990 to 1992 the not known and part-time figures are estimated

  3 Age and sex details of part-time teachers have not been given because about 10 per cent, to 20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the Teachers' Pension Scheme, from which the data are obtained

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the average revenue funding per pupil in(a) foundation and (b) voluntary aided schools in (i)1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000. [14570]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Data are not collected separately for foundation schools (this status has been in existence since September 1999) and voluntary aided schools.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will maintain funding for school sixth forms in real terms in 2003–04. [14571]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This Government remain committed to the real terms guarantee for school sixth form funding.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to whom indicative budgets for individual school sixth forms in Worcestershire have been made available; and if she will publish them by 5 November. [12459]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The first provisional allocations for school sixth forms will be notified to LEAs and made public by the Learning

  Teacher statutory salaries by whether working in primary or secondary: 1999 Annual statutory pay, excluding bonuses converted to US dollars based on purchasing power parities

  Primary

  Lower secondary

  Upper secondary

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Australia

  25,661

  37,502

  26,658

  37,577

  26,658

  37,577

  Austria

  21,804

  44,159

  22,421

  46,735

  24,027

  54,443

  Belgium (FI)

  22,901

  36,594

  23,428

  40,017

  29,075

  40,461

  Belgium (Fr)

  22,043

  35,685

  22,561

  39,115

  28,151

  49,581

  Czech Republic

  6,806

  12,103

  6,806

  12,103

  8,052

  14,316

  Denmark

  28,140

  32,684

  28,140

  32,684

  29,986

  42,672

  England

  19,999

  33,540

  19,999

  33,540

  19,999

  33,540

  Finland

  18,110

  25,615

  20,394

  29,530

  21,047

  31,325

  France

  19,761

  39,271

  21,918

  41,537

  21,918

  41,537

  Germany

  29,697

  38,996

  33,196

  43,945

  35,546

  49,445

  810W
  and Skills Council in December 2001. The baseline data on which the real terms guarantee for sixth forms will be calculated was the subject of consultation between the DfES and local education authorities in August. Schools also received the relevant provisional baseline data on which the Department consulted in early September as part of a guidance pack published by the Learning and Skills Council.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the average(a) starting and (b) top scale teachers' salaries in real terms in each of the last 20 years, in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [14413]

  Mr. Timms
  I will write to the hon. Member enclosing this information as soon as possible, and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish comparative figures for(a) starting and (b) top scale teacher salaries in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [14414]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested, which is published in the OECD annual "Education at a Glance", is shown in the following table and refers to 1999, the latest year for which information is available.
  811W

  Teacher statutory salaries by whether working in primary or secondary: 1999 Annual statutory pay, excluding bonuses converted to US dollars based on purchasing power parities

  Primary

  Lower secondary

  Upper secondary

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Greece

  19,327

  28,027

  19,650

  28,987

  19,650

  28,987

  Hungary

  5.763

  11,105

  5,763

  11,105

  6,908

  13,217

  Iceland

  19,939

  25,377

  19,939

  25,377

  20,775

  30,954

  Ireland

  21.940

  40,141

  23,033

  40,532

  23,033

  40,523

  Italy

  19,188

  28,038

  20,822

  31,062

  20,822

  32,602

  Korea

  23.759

  62,281

  23,613

  62,135

  23,613

  62,135

  Mexico

  10.465

  22,345

  13,357

  27,643

  n/a

  n/a

  Netherlands

  25.896

  37,381

  26,874

  41,066

  27,133

  54,720

  New Zealand

  16.678

  32,573

  16,678

  32,573

  16,678

  32,573

  Norway

  22.194

  27,453

  22,194

  27,453

  22,194

  27,453

  Portugal

  18.751

  50,061

  18,751

  50,061

  18,751

  50,061

  Scotland

  19.765

  32,858

  19,765

  32,858

  19,765

  32,858

  Spain

  24.464

  37,317

  26,669

  40,082

  29,058

  43,100

  Sweden

  18.581

  n/a

  18,704

  n/a

  20,549

  n/a

  Switzerland

  33.209

  51,813

  39,162

  60,165

  46,866

  70,548

  Turkey

  9.116

  11,541

  8,144

  10,568

  8,144

  10,568

  USA

  25.707

  43,094

  25,155

  44,397

  25,405

  44,394

  Notes:

  1. The OECD asks for statutory salary scale points but, where these are not available, countries can use survey data on actual salary and use approximations to identify equivalents to bottom and top of the scale.

  2. Some countries pay different salaries to teachers in primary and secondary schools although there is no such distinction in England. 'Lower secondary' is, broadly the 11–15 age range and upper secondary is 16–19.

  3. These salary comparisons can be only broadly indicative. Thus, they exclude extra allowances and yet, in England, many teachers at the top of the scale would also get management allowances. The figures pre-date the introduction of performance related pay but the OECD definition would exclude that too. There are other differences, for example in the treatment of employer social security payments.

  4. The time taken to get to the top of the scale varies markedly between countries and so, for example, a country with a high top scale point might require many years service to reach this and so the top point is not representative of the pay of most teachers.

  5. 'Purchasing power parties' are different from currency exchange rates and aim to reflect differences in price levels between countries and are more appropriate for those comparisons. Teacher salaries will also reflect the overall levels of national incomes and wages in national economies which is one reason why the range of salaries is so wide. There will be other such factors such as the average age of entry to teaching of new qualifiers. Salary will also reflect non-pay elements of remuneration and features of the teaching job such as hours, workload, job security, status all of which might vary between countries.

  Source:

  Tables DI. la-c, OECD "Education at a Glance" 2001, published by OECD, Paris.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of early years settings employ a qualified teacher; and what the cost would be of placing a qualified teacher in every early years setting. [14579]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Approximately 35,000 early years settings are registered to deliver Government funded nursery education. Of these, around 50 per cent. are local education authority maintained primary schools and nursery schools, all of which directly employ qualified teachers.

  We have asked local early years development and child care partnerships (EYDCPs), in association with their local education authorities, to ensure that a ratio of one teacher with qualified teacher status to every 10 early education settings in the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector is achieved by 2004.

  The approximate cost of placing a qualified teacher in every PVI sector setting would be £435 million per annum. We have no present plans to do this.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Haskins Report
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which hon.812W
  Members were given (a) notice of and (b) briefing on the content of Lord Haskins report prior to 12.30 pm on 18 October. [9951]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: I am not aware that any hon. Members were given advance notice of and briefing on the content of Lord Haskins report prior to 12.30 pm on 18 October. My noble Friend launched his report at 10.30 am on that day.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to claim agrimonetary compensation from the EU; and if she will make a statement. [12356]

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to claim further agrimonetary compensation. [12419]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Since 1997, a total of £785 million has been announced in agrimonetary compensation for farmers. Of this, £256 million has been optional. We have no plans to claim any agrimonetary compensation from the EU. Any future payments of agrimonetary compensation, to which the Exchequer would have to contribute at least 71p in every pound, must be balanced against the needs of other sectors and taxpayers.

  Mink Farms
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many mink farms were operating in England and Wales on 28 February; and if she will list their locations by county. [13805]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 28 February 2001, there were the following licensed mink farms in England:

  County

  Number

  Cornwall

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Lancashire

  4

  Northumberland

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  Total

  12

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list all movements of farmed mink that took place in England and Wales during(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [13802]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no requirement to inform the Department of the movement of mink. Under the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975 (as amended), such movements must be carried out in closed cages or other containers which prevent mink from escaping. The movement of farmed mink in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. However, I understand that there have been no licensed mink farms in Wales for some years.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates each of the mink farms operating in England and Wales were inspected during 2001; and what plans there are to inspect farms after 30 September. [13801]

  Mr. Morley
  Mink farms in England were inspected on the following dates in 2001:

  County

  Date of security inspections

  Date of welfare inspections

  Cornwall

  —

  30 January

  Dorset

  27 June

  —

  Hampshire

  27 June

  26 January

  16 July

  2 February

  24 October

  Isle of Wight

  14 June

  —

  Lancashire

  3 April

  —

  4 April

  Northumberland

  22 February

  —

  South Yorkshire

  1 May

  —

  West Yorkshire

  13 September

  —

  Due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, a number of planned mid-year security and welfare inspections could not be made. However, the usual programme of inspections will now continue for those mink farms still in operation.
  814W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) breeding female and (b) other mink were present at each of the mink farms operating on 28 February; and if she will show the figures by (i) farm and (ii) county. [13804]

  Mr. Morley
  We estimate, following visits by independent consultants engaged by the Department, that in February 2001 a total of 30,000 female and 6,000 male mink were being kept in England. I am unable to release details by farm because of commercial confidentiality.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many mink farms were operating and contained live mink in England and Wales on 1 October; and if she will list their locations by county. [13803]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 1 October 2001, three mink farms in England were licensed and contained live mink, two in Lancashire and one in Hampshire.

  Energy Performance (Buildings)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many responses were received to the Government's consultation on the proposed EU directive on the energy performance of buildings; and how many of these responses welcomed the proposal. [12756]

  Mr. Meacher
  Approximately 150 written responses were received in response to the Government's consultation on the proposed EU directive on the energy performance of buildings. The consultation closed on 26 October and the responses are currently being analysed, but an initial review of the responses so far indicates that all but three were broadly supportive of the proposed directive. A summary of responses will be published on the DEFRA website in due course.

  Foot and Mouth
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the percentage of FMD cases where transmission of the disease was(a) from animal to animal, (b) airborne, (c) from contact with persons who had handled infected animals, (d) from contact with persons who had no contact with infected animals and (e) due to other causes. [12293]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Investigations into the epidemiology of the outbreak are continuing and a number of publications are planned. The following interim results are minimum estimates for the single cause of infection.

  Number of cases

  Percentag of cases

  (a) Animal to animal

  92

  4.5

  (b) Airborne

  18

  0.9

  (c) and (d) Personal contact

  73

  3.6

  (e) Other causes1

  1,840

  90.9

  Total

  2,023

  —

  1See breakdown in following table

  815W

  Breakdown of (e) 'other causes'

  Number of cases

  Percentage of cases

  Local transmission

  1,587

  78.4

  Dairy tanker

  13

  0.6

  Other fomite

  12

  0.6

  Other vehicles

  29

  1.4

  Under investigation

  199

  9.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures do not distinguish between those persons who handled infected animals and those who did not.

  2. Many infected premises had multiple possible sources of infection. If investigations reveal that there was more than one potential source within the appropriate time frame and the case falls within 3 kilometres of an earlier premises, the cause is recorded as 'local' transmission.

  3. A fomite is defined as any inanimate object capable of carrying the virus.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what differences there are between the guidance given to Herefordshire council about grants to assist businesses affected by foot and mouth disease and that issued to Business Link and the Forest of Dean council and to Gloucestershire council. [6468]

  Alun Michael
  Within the guidelines it was left to individual regional development agencies to decide how to manage and prioritise the assistance given. Officials have looked at the way this has been dealt with by south-west regional development agency and Advantage West Midlands and are satisfied that although differing in detail both are consistent with the guidelines. I will write to my hon. Friend with further details.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of jobs lost in the agricultural sector as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. [7749]

  Alun Michael
  The Department does not have statistics which could accurately reflect any job losses in the agricultural sector resulting from foot and mouth disease. As part of our efforts to properly interpret the social and economic impact on rural areas we are currently running a telephone survey of a sample of farmers who have been directly or indirectly affected by foot and mouth disease. This survey includes questions relating to the employment effects of the outbreak.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what requirements farms must comply with in order to qualify for(a) cleansing and (b) restocking following a foot and mouth outbreak; [8147]

  (2) if she will make a statement on her policy on (a) cleansing and (b) restocking of farms infected by foot and mouth; [8146]

  (3) if she will make a statement on how the restocking procedure following the foot and mouth outbreak will be implemented and the criteria governing this programme. [8153]

  Mr. Morley
  Cleansing and disinfection and restocking are key stages in the FMD eradication process.
  816W
  Our policy is to ensure that cleansing and disinfection is carried out thoroughly and efficiently while at the same time ensuring the best use of public funds. Preliminary cleansing and disinfection (C and D) is carried out during the slaughter and disposal stage on all premises known, or believed to be contaminated with foot and mouth disease in order to minimise the risk of the virus spreading to neighbouring farms. Twenty-four hours after this stage has been completed, secondary C and D can commence, the purpose of which is to reduce the risk of recrudescence and allow for restocking. Restocking can commence once the farmer has a certificate stating the C and D has been satisfactorily completed.

  The Department will normally pay the costs of secondary C and D providing farms are (a) in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, (b) there are no health and safety implications for those involved in the cleansing operation and (c) that the costs incurred are proportionate to the individual farm situation. Since 5 August, contractual arrangements have been tightened and farmers encouraged to undertake secondary C and D themselves, wherever possible.

  Restocking must be accomplished in such a way as to balance the needs of the livestock industry and the veterinary and scientific advice as to the disease control risks involved in this process. The key elements of our restocking policy are as follows:
  Secondary C and D must take place and a period of 21 days allowed to elapse prior to restocking.
  If secondary C and D does not take place, a period of 12 months must elapse prior to restocking.
  Movements of stock on to the farm must be licensed by DEFRA.
  The numbers of livestock permitted for initial restocking must be set out in the premises restocking plan, which must be approved by the divisional veterinary manager.
  Depending on the origin of sheep, testing of the flock of origin and all the sheep to be moved may be required. This will give valuable surveillance data on the prevalence of disease in the national flock.
  Animals are to be inspected regularly for four weeks. Sheep and goats will be blood tested after 28 days. If all clear, restrictions can be lifted.

  Further advice on restocking is available to farmers on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/.

  Sheep and Goats
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) the National Farmers Union and (b) others about the National Farmers Union's proposals for individual identification of sheep and goats; and if he will make a statement. [13952]

  Mr. Morley
  The NFU has not put forward proposals for compulsory individual identification of sheep and goats.

  My officials have had initial discussions with industry representatives, which included NFU, about the future identification requirements for sheep and goats. Individual identification was one of the options discussed and we are now considering the views expressed by industry before a final decision is taken.

  Agriculture Revenue
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the income of the United Kingdom Agriculture industry was that derived from(a) EU common agricultural policy funds, including intervention sales, (b) UK funds and product sales, and (c) other sources, expressed in (i) cash and (ii) percentage terms, in the last 12 months. [12881]

  Mr. Morley
  Estimates of the revenue to the agricultural industry broken down by source for the calendar year 2000 are given in the table.

  Revenue to the UK industry in the year 2000

  £ million

  Percentage

  Total revenue1

  15,587

  100

  of which:

  CAP support—EU funded2

  2,432

  16

  UK Exchequer funding3

  144

  1

  Product sales4

  11,613

  75

  Taxes

  -103

  -1

  Other sources5

  1,501

  10

  1 Gross output at basic prices plus other subsidies less taxes on production

  2 Excludes indirect market support such as intervention purchases but includes payments for over-30-month scheme

  3 Includes CAP support measures funded by UK Exchequer

  4 Includes the effects of indirect market support which cost£497 million in 2000–01

  5 Includes transactions between farms and revenue from non-agricultural activities on the farm

  Entrust
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when and how often Entrust provides financial reports to HM Customs and Excise. [13876]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Customs has direct online access to Entrust's accounting database which contains detailed reports from environmental bodies. In addition Entrust provides Customs with its annual audited company accounts and an annual report containing statistical information about the landfill tax credit scheme.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the future role of Entrust, as a result of the proposed reform of the landfill tax credit scheme. [13875]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  As stated in Budget 2001, we are attracted to replacing all or part of the landfill tax credit scheme with a public spending programme to direct resources towards Government priorities on sustainable waste management. The Government, together with the devolved Administrations, are developing options for a spending programme for consideration as part of the spending review 2002. Maintaining the current scheme, potentially with minor modifications, will also be reviewed. The Government will consult with interested parties on the future of the scheme and the transition to any replacement. The role of Entrust will be determined by the outcome of this consultation.
  818W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are taken by Entrust to conduct audits into applications for grants for environmental projects as part of the landfill tax credit scheme; and if she will make a statement. [13877]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Entrust is responsible for enroling environmental bodies and checking that they meet qualifying criteria. It monitors the spending of these bodies through a risk based audit programme and notifies Customs where money has not been properly spent.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what remuneration packages are available to executives of Entrust; and if she will make a statement. [13878]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  As a private sector company, details of the salaries and benefits of its employees are a matter for Entrust.

  Zoo Animals
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) the conditions in which zoo animals are kept and (b) the consequences for the safety of their keepers. [13816]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice provide comprehensive guidance on best practice for keeping animals in zoos (this document can be obtained from DEFRAs website at www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/gwd/zooprac/ index.htm). They set out the basic principles that zoos need to observe to secure the proper care and well-being of the animals in their care, and they form the basis on which zoo inspections are carried out on behalf of local authorities under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

  The health and safety of zoo employees is provided for by a separate inspection process under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. Although the inspection regimes are quite separate, the local authorities often co-ordinate the inspections as benefits can arise from conducting them together.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made in financial terms of abuse related to the landfill tax credit scheme. [13910]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Because of on-going investigations no accurate financial assessment of abuse in the landfill tax credit scheme is currently available.

  Flooding
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance she is providing to the(a) London borough of Redbridge and (b) Environment Agency to protect properties at risk from flooding. [13976]
  819W
  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA provides grant aid for flood defence capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic arid environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score.

  DEFRA has recently approved for grant aid two studies, the Seven Kings Water and Cran Brook Hydraulic Studies, being undertaken by the London borough of Redbridge. The estimated cost is £44,000 and the council has been awarded a grant rate of 45 per cent.

  The Environment Agency has extended flood warning arrangements and are also undertaking studies and maintenance in the area, but have not sought DEFRA funding as yet.

  Hunting
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to allow fox hunting to resume; and if she will make a statement. [12337]

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on when hunting will recommence in Wales following the foot and mouth outbreak. [12838]

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the veterinary risk of resuming hunting in Worcestershire; and if she will make a statement. [12678]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The veterinary risk assessment raises a number of complex issues regarding the future of foot and mouth disease related restrictions on hunting and such matters involve a careful balance of risks. It will be published as soon as Ministers and DEFRA officials have completed their consideration of the document. An announcement on the future of foot and mouth disease controls on hunting will be made as soon as possible.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of

  United Kingdom beef consumption

  Unit1

  Year

  Total available for UK consumption

  Of which:imports2

  As a percentage of total consumption

  Of which: UK produced beef

  As percentage of total consumption

  1991

  995

  204

  20

  791

  80

  1992

  993

  206

  21

  788

  79

  1993

  921

  209

  23

  712

  77

  1994

  969

  190

  20

  778

  80

  1995

  903

  212

  24

  691

  76

  1996

  732

  169

  23

  563

  77

  1997

  857

  217

  25

  640

  75

  1998

  858

  152

  18

  706

  82

  1999

  934

  183

  20

  751

  80

  20003

  915

  197

  21

  718

  79

  1 Thousand tonnes carcase weight equivalent

  2 Assumes all imports are consumed in the UK and all imports during a particular year are consumed in that year

  3 Provisional data

  Source:

  Prepared by: Statistics (Commodities and Food) Division, Economics and Statistics Directorate, DEFRA
  820W
  the total UK volume of radioactive wastes has been produced by the nuclear power sector in the last five years. [13289]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: Approximately 93 per cent. of the total volume of radioactive wastes produced in the last five years has arisen from the nuclear power sector and its associated research and development activities.

  Movement of Livestock Scheme
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at what dates and times the autumn movement of livestock scheme website has been unavailable; and if she will make a statement on the impact on applicants of the unavailability of that website. [12543]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the livestock movement scheme is held on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk. This site has been continuously available since the scheme was introduced.

  Fox Control
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what risk assessments have been completed on the recommencement of fox control in Wales following the foot and mouth outbreak; and if she will place copies of the risk assessments in the Library. [12839]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, columns 735–36W.

  Beef Consumption
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of beef consumption was(a) UK produced and (b) imported in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [14061]

  Mr. Morley
  Estimates of the breakdown of UK beef consumption between imported and UK produced beef are given in the table:

  Vets
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vets were employed by the state veterinary service in each year since 1997. [14058]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the state veterinary service at 1 January each year since 1997 is given in the table.

  Of the 286 full-time equivalent veterinarians employed by the state veterinary service, 220 are employed as field veterinary officers. The work of these officers is supplemented by about 100 temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs) from the private sector in normal times.

  Year

  Number of vets

  1997

  289.5

  1998

  302.0

  1999

  283.0

  2000

  284.0

  2001

  286.0

  Sheepmeat Exports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the commencement of sheepmeat exports; and if she will list those countries free from foot and mouth disease from which sheepmeat destined for export can be derived. [14060]

  Mr. Morley
  It is anticipated that the mechanisms for the recommencement of exports of sheepmeat will be in place by 19 November 2001. The areas where the sheep may be sourced are available in the Library of the House.

  GM Crop Trials
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make it her policy that no new farmscale GM crop trials will be licensed within cross-pollination distance of Ryton Organic Gardens; [275]

  (2) what powers the Government have to intervene in the licensing of the farmscale GM crop trials once they have been approved by SCIMAC and the Scientific Steering Committee. [289]
  822W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The crops grown in the programme of farmscale evaluations (FSEs) are at two different stages in the authorisation process. The powers to intervene in the licensing of the FSEs depend on the authorisation status of the GM crop concerned.

  The oil seed rape and beet are authorised by my Department for growing in the evaluations under UK legislation implementing Part B of European directive 90/220 on deliberate release of GMOs. The consent is underpinned by a risk assessment and permits the GM crops to be grown in the evaluations on any arable land where rape or beet would normally be grown. The consent holder has to notify the Department of the locations of proposed sites prior to sowing together with a statement indicating whether the risk assessment remains valid for the new site and, if not, provide further evaluation. The consent holder may proceed to sow the crop unless he receives written indication from the Department that the new site does not comply on safety or other grounds with the conditions of the consent and the risk assessment.

  The GM maize has Europe-wide approval for cultivation under Part C of Directive 90/220 granted in August 1998 by the French competent authority on behalf of the EC. However, this approval imposes no restrictions or conditions on the locations where the maize can be grown. For this crop, therefore, the Department has no statutory powers to intervene over the location of trial sites. However, before the GM maize could be grown commercially individual varieties will require listing on the National List of Seeds or the European Common Catalogue. In addition, under our voluntary agreement with the industry body SCIMAC, this GM crop will not be grown commercially in the UK until the completion of the evaluations and only then if it is assessed as causing no unacceptable effects on the environment.

  The evaluations are being undertaken by an independent research consortium and overseen by the independent Scientific Steering Committee. SCIMAC provide the fields of crops for study. The steering committee has set overall criteria for the conduct of the evaluations and requires a representative distribution of sites. SCIMAC find farmers who may be willing to host an evaluation and draw up a list of potential farms from which the researchers select sites to meet the SSC criteria. Ministers are not involved in this process.

  Given the public reaction to the proposal to locate an evaluation close to Ryton Organic Gardens last spring, the Government will use their influence to seek to ensure that no FSE site is chosen in future within cross-pollution distance of Ryton Organic Gardens.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

The Lord Bishop of Chester
Peter Robert, Lord Bishop of Chester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth and the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Road Accidents
Lord Higginsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they have drawn from the figures for road safety published by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the large differences between the casualty rates for different modes of transport recently highlighted by PACTS confirm the relative rarity of major air and rail accidents and demonstrate the unacceptably high level of ones on our roads. The PACTS figures were averages for 1988 to 1997. The latest averages for 1991 to 2000 show an improvement for all modes except motorbikes and scooters, of which the number of deaths last year was the highest since 1990. We shall address this in delivering our road safety strategy Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I declare an interest as both a motorist and cyclist. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that a clear conclusion from these figures is that cycling is the most dangerous form of transport and that the dangers are significantly increased by the tendency of many cyclists not to obey the law and frequently to ride at night without lights? Will the Minister ensure that the Government's publicity campaign on road safety, particularly on television, draws attention to the risks and dangers of effectively suicidal and dangerous behaviour, and will serious attempts now be made to enforce the law?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, according to the figures which give the 10-year average up until 1997, for pedal cycles there were 885 deaths or serious injuries per billion passenger kilometres. That was the second worst category. The comparable figure for two-wheeled motor vehicles, which I take to mean motorbikes and scooters, was 1,441. Those are the two worst categories. As to the second question, we published a strategy in March 2000. The key to making it as safe as possible for cyclists involves in part local transport plans but also cyclists themselves taking proper precautions, as the
560
noble Lord said. They have a responsibility to other road users to observe traffic rules. The noble Lord is aware that the Highway Code contains a chapter on rules for cyclists. They are encouraged to make themselves more conspicuous by wearing fluorescent and reflective clothing. Pedal cycles in use on roads between sunset and sunrise should show a white light to the front, a red light to the rear and a red rear retro-reflector. It is an offence with a maximum fine of £2,500 not to comply with that road traffic requirement. Obviously, it is an important law, as the figures demonstrate. But we also need to make motorists much more conscious of the vulnerability of cyclists on the road and training to that effect is often available.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in view of the fact that 3,500 people were killed and another 320,000 seriously injured on our roads last year, why have the Government issued guidelines to local authorities which make it more difficult for them to install speed cameras?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have introduced a range of measures to try to improve road safety, for example, guidance in relation to speed limits and local transport plans which make roads safer not just for cyclists but for all road users, including pedestrians and drivers. As to whether it is easier to install speed cameras, I am not sure about the guidance to which the noble Lord refers. If the noble Lord can refer me to it I shall write to him in response. Speed cameras have had a very good effect in reducing road accidents, and it is for each local authority or police authority to decide whether they are appropriate to their areas.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend that cycling should be encouraged for reasons of health and less pollution. Does he not agree that it would be made safer by providing a physical barrier or kerb between cycle tracks and traffic on the road? In that way, cyclists would not need to go on to the road to avoid cars parked on cycle tracks, and cars would not need to be on cycle tracks. Everything would be much safer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, making it easier for people to walk or cycle if their journey is short is a key part of our integrated transport strategy. We are keen to promote cycling and walking. In some cases the proposal of my noble friend would be appropriate, but, as he will be aware, it is not remotely possible in every area. The wider range of measures that I referred to must be dealt with as well.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, how many prosecutions have taken place of cyclists who ride on the pavement to the danger of pedestrians, go up one-way streets the wrong way, jump the traffic lights and pay no attention to traffic control? Does the Minister not agree that it is high time that the police had a stringent and vigorous assault on cyclists who break the law, as they do with motorists?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the figures that the noble Lord asks for. I shall try to get them. He referred to such a wide range of offences that it may not be possible to get them all. I shall do my best. It is important that cyclists obey the law and know what the law is. That is demonstrated by the appalling figures to which I referred at the outset of the Question. Local authorities need to look at their local transport plans to ensure that conditions are as safe as possible for walkers and cyclists and that drivers are conscious of the vulnerability of cyclists.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, contrary to public perception, older drivers are among the safest in this country? Yet they are the only group who automatically, at the age of 70, are required to have validation to drive. Would it not be better if drivers were assessed for competence at regular periods during their adult lives?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again I do not know precisely what the figures are. My experience of more elderly drivers is that they are very safe indeed. It is sensible that there should be validation at the age of 70. In certain other circumstances, particularly after one has been disqualified or put off the road for an offence, it is right that there should be a further test. Beyond that, I am not sure that it is appropriate to have validation.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as the newly elected president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Is my noble and learned friend aware that there were 9,000 deaths and 200,000 injuries among cyclists and pedestrians throughout the European Union? It is the view of virtually every expert that if there were legislation to create safer front ends of motor vehicles, the number of casualties could be substantially alleviated.
Can my noble and learned friend comment on the report in The Times of 26th October that the Government appear to be abandoning an approach to European-wide legislation in favour of a voluntary code, which, it is felt, will not save anything like the same number of lives?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the statistics to which my noble friend refers. There is an advisory group on motorcycling that is examining inter alia vehicle safety and security. As to the issue of car safety, that is something that we should look into but obviously I can give no assurance that we shall take that forward.

Afghanistan: Cluster Bomb Policy
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the use of cluster bombs in operations against Taliban terrorists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the cluster bombs used in Afghanistan have not been prohibited by any treaty or convention. They are employed only against legitimate terrorist and military targets where they are the most effective weapon to attack the target concerned.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. While the most effective weapon should of course be used against the Taliban, if cluster bombs are used would they contain self-destroying mechanisms to prevent them becoming landmines in the future, scattered in a way that can cause serious injury to civilians?
Lord Bach: My Lords, there are failure rates for the bomblets that are in cluster bombs. The manufacturer of the UK's cluster bomb—the RBL755—estimates the failure rate of the bomblets released from that bomb to be 5 per cent. We do not have up-to-date figures for the cluster bombs that the United States has been using in Afghanistan. The noble Lord will know that British forces have not themselves dropped any cluster bombs in Afghanistan.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, in view of our experience in the Gulf War—namely, that the longer a conflict lasts, the more difficult it becomes for the different partners to stick together—does the Minister agree that this conflict has reached the stage where both cluster and "daisy cutter" bombs are so inaccurate and dangerous that such weaponry no longer provides a viable option for the future?
Lord Bach: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate, I am afraid that I cannot agree with him. Without the use of such bombs, along with other weapons, does any noble Lord in the House believe that Mazar-i Sharif or Kabul would have fallen by now? The falling of those cities means that those who live in them are no longer controlled by the Taliban, with the risks that that control posed to their lives and also with the total lack of freedom. I must tell the right reverend Prelate that we shall use whatever weaponry is necessary to ensure that we meet the objectives of this war, not the least of which is to protect, in the future, any British troops who may be in Afghanistan.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a study made in February last year of the use of cluster bombs concluded that an immediate ban would be inappropriate due to their proven utility and limited scale of use when compared with the use of landmines? Is he also aware that our own troops would be put into great danger if we did not use cluster bombs to defeat the enemy?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was not aware of the study to which he referred, but I shall ensure that I take note of it. So far as concerns his second point, of course it is right that

563
if British or coalition troops are to operate on the ground in Afghanistan, the priority must be their protection and safety. That is a matter that the Government will always bear in mind.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if British personnel are to be used on the ground in Afghanistan, will the Minister consider implementing further training to deal with cluster bombs? British personnel have already been killed by unexploded cluster munitions in Kosovo.
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course full training will be given to members of the British Armed Forces, as is always the case.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather untidy to refer to cluster bombs as one kind of munition? Does he agree that the two main weapons currently being used in Afghanistan are the CBU 87, which casts out bomblets that look like cans of cola and thus might attract children to them, and the CBU 89, which scatters mines over a large area? Can the Minister confirm that the latter bombs contain a self-destruct device which can be used to destroy them before a civilian on the ground is injured?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question and for his expertise in this area. I can tell him that the following cluster munitions have been used in Afghanistan: the air-guided munition, 154 joint standoff weapon; the cluster bomb unit CBU 87, to which the noble Lord referred; and the CBU 103. Neither the CBU 89 nor the CBU 104 GATOR bomb has been dropped over Afghanistan. The latter two can be considered to be anti-personnel landmines.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, one of my abiding memories of a past visit to Afghanistan is the scourge of landmines. It is estimated that some 10 million unexploded landmines are buried in the country. Will Ministers take the opportunity to factor that problem into their development programmes, as time permits?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we certainly shall do so. As the noble Lord has illustrated, many dangers exist in Afghanistan, not least from the thousands, if not millions, of anti-personnel mines that have been planted by warring parties over 20 years. We are committed to a long-term process of reconstruction in Afghanistan and we are considering ways of demining and then disposing of unexploded ordnance, which would form part of that process. Thus, the answer to the noble Viscount's question is yes.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a failure rate of 5 per cent for any British munition is far too high for the safety of our troops and the effectiveness of our operations? What is being done to improve the rate of burst to a satisfactory level?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as with all weapons, every effort is made to ensure that they perform as safely as
564
is possible. I have given the House the best figures from the British manufacturers. Of course we shall do all that we can to ensure that weapons become even safer. However, if from time to time we did not use such weapons, the results would be infinitely worse, both for the citizens of Afghanistan and for the coalition troops.

Terrorism Act 2000
2.55 p.m.
Lord Rotherwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many police investigations are under way under the Terrorism Act 2000 with a view to deporting terrorists.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question is none. Investigations under the Terrorism Act 2000 are a matter entirely for the police. It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to pursue a prosecution. Since 11th September, 41 people have been arrested under the Act. Six are presently remanded in police custody. However, the Immigration Act 1971 allows the Home Secretary to take deportation action against any individual, if their presence in the United Kingdom is deemed not be conducive to the public good.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful Answer. Will he join me in applauding Syria on its recent action? It has extradited to Egypt Refaie Ahmed Taha, the terrorist behind the shooting of 28 British and foreign tourists in Luxor in 1997? Are the Government considering whether they should follow the example set by Syria in extraditing terrorists even if they may face the death penalty in the country to which they are extradited?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer to the final part of the noble Lord's question is no. In response to the first part, I must be honest and say that I am not briefed to comment in detail on it. The noble Lord is entitled to ask me about such questions, but it simply would not be possible to give a brief response
However, under the terms of our extradition procedure, of the six people currently remanded in police custody—I emphasise that—two are among a total of 10 who are subject to extradition warrants. Of the 41 people I mentioned, 13 more were released into the custody of the Immigration Service. Thus they are being detained, but they are not in police custody. The subject of extradition is complex and we shall bring forward an extradition Bill in the early part of next year. However, we shall not seek powers to extradite people to countries where they would face torture or the death penalty. We shall seek other means of extradition, some details of which were included in the Bill published yesterday.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary's powers to issue a deportation order should and will remain subject to the power of judicial review?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not believe that we have any plans to change that system. We seek to introduce changes to aspects of judicial review, the details of which were included in the Bill published yesterday. We have made it clear why we intend to make those changes. No one has been denied the right to review the terms of their detention sentence. The detainee can appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, to the House of Lords, so in that sense we are removing judicial review. We are taking steps to make the process faster, while making it fairer, in order that it should not be abused by the legal trade.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reluctance of the Government to resort to deportation to some countries in which there is the possibility of the use of the death penalty could lead to this country becoming, in certain circumstances, a haven for international terrorists? In turn, that could be interpreted as an incitement to violence in this country.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking me to derogate not only from the European Convention on Human Rights, but in fact to get out of something to which this country has been a signatory under both governments for over 50 years. That is the implication if knowingly we return people to countries where they will face the death penalty. No one has suggested that we should pull away completely from the European Convention on Human Rights. If we are holding people who, we believe, are in that situation and we cannot take forward a criminal prosecution simply because the evidence is based on Security Service or surveillance sources and thus cannot be put before a court, but we believe that those people pose a threat to public safety, we are limited in our choices. We can allow them to roam free in this country; we can deport them to a safe third country, if one can be found; or we detain them. Those are three choices. We have put forward the last alternative in the Bill. It will be for others to choose between the three options. However, I should stress that we have only those three from which to choose.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is precisely the situation he has outlined which, for the past 40 years, has made this country the recipient of regular complaints from several countries that the UK has for many years been a safe home for terrorist groups?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. Such allegations have been made. But, given the contents of the Bill we published yesterday—which, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, will become an Act before the end of the year—I do not think that anyone,
566
anywhere, friend or foe, will be in a position to say that this country is a safe haven for terrorists. The Bill is being brought forward to block a series of loopholes. If each loophole had been taken in isolation, Parliament would probably have said it was a step too far. In the present circumstances, it is a modest, precautionary and proportionate approach to the situation that the country faces.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend unequivocally agree that, in the present circumstances, the safety and security of the British people, of this nation, is of overriding importance? If that means a reduction in civil liberties and human rights, then so be it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. I cannot quote Article 1 verbatim, but I believe that it refers to the right to life. That is why it is Article 1.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of those so far investigated were admitted to this country as asylum seekers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot. I do not have the individual details of the 13 people who have been released into the custody of the Immigration Service but, quite clearly, this step has been taken because of some factor relating to immigration legislation. Whether they came here as visitors and overstayed, or whether they came as asylum seekers, I am not in a position to say. If I can obtain the details, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what is the Government's position when receiving a complaint from a friendly government about a terrorist group which is not on the UK list of proscribed terrorists?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if we receive a complaint, we obviously look at the case. The list has been added to considerably since 11th September—I believe there are now more than 35 organisations listed—and if someone has a complaint about its legitimacy, about a mistake in the list or about a case which they think has not received a proper hearing, we will receive their representations.

Millennium Dome
3.3 p.m.
Earl Attleeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the event that demolition of the Millennium Dome represents best value to the taxpayer, they will consider such a course of action.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, value for money is one of the criteria for evaluating proposals for the future of the Dome, together with the requirement for any future use to provide a worthwhile

567
and sustainable future, and for us to be assured that any proposal can be successfully delivered. Proposals will be assessed against these criteria and will take account of the value of the site without the Dome.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We know that there are two values for the site—one with the Dome and one without the Dome. Will the Minister come clean and say what is the difference between the two values, to the nearest £30 million, and will he say which value will appear in the accounts of English Partnerships?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I will not say what is the difference in value. Assessments have been carried out for the purpose of informing the ongoing process of market testing. The reason I will not say is that discussions are going on with a small number of serious bidders at the moment and it would be prejudicial to those negotiations to give those figures. When they are prepared, the English Partnership accounts will, in accordance with good accountancy practice, take into account all information in valuing the Dome.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, has anything come of the idea mooted in the press the other day that the Government should consider offering the Millennium Dome, free of charge, to New York City, where it might stand, for a few years at least, on the ground space previously occupied by the twin towers while plans are made to redevelop the World Trade Centre? Is that not an idea worth investigating? Would it not permit the Dome to exit this country with some glory?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Mr David James, the chairman of NMEC, said that the idea had no prospect whatever of deliverability. Having said that, the ideas that went into the making of the Dome could well be of assistance to the people of New York in covering ground zero. We have made clear that we will provide any assistance they may require in that respect.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the people of Greenwich would be very angry indeed at an attempt to knock down their Dome? Recently, a 14-screen cinema has been opened on what was derelict land in the area. Without the Dome, that land would not have been regenerated. The development has provided another 80 jobs for people in the area.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the feelings of people in the area that the Dome should stay. I am also aware of the effect of decontaminating the north Greenwich peninsula. It has made it possible for housing, health centres, schools and cinemas to be built, whereas before there was no hope of such development. I am also aware of the development and prospects for jobs that it has brought.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree—it is an open secret—that the site is worth at— least £300 million more without the Dome than with it? As London is very short of affordable housing, has the noble and learned Lord estimated how many families could be housed on the site if the Dome were to be demolished?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, so far as concerns the "open secret" and £300 million more for the site on which the Dome sits, I do not know from where the noble Viscount is getting his information but I can tell him that it is not accurate. So far as concerns the whole north Greenwich peninsula—not only the site of the Dome but also the area to the south of it—yes, there are very real prospects of housing being built there. Some housing has already been built in the Millennium Village, which is situated to the south of the Dome. The noble Viscount will agree that we want mixed communities; we want houses and other facilities which bring jobs.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, throughout the whole of the year the noble and learned Lord has told your Lordships on many occasions that market testing is going on. Can he tell the House when market testing is due to be completed and when we will have a proper competition for the Dome? Will he confirm that options including and excluding the Dome structure will be a part of that competition?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, I have described the process on a number of occasions. It involves market testing and, currently, it involves discussions with a small number of bidders. The right course is for those discussions to carry on. It would be wrong for me to specify a particular timetable. It would be wrong for me to say anything else at the moment because it might prejudice those discussions.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, market testing goes on, when there is no real intention of selling anything, just to get a realistic valuation. Is there a real intention to sell the Dome or the site?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the coalition against international terrorism. It is likely that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the first debate.

Parliament Act (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Parliament Act 1949 so that it applies only to public Bills first introduced into the House of Commons in the third or a subsequent Session of any Parliament. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Renton of Mount Harry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Peyton of Yeovil and the Lord Pilkington of Oxenford set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Underground
3.9 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil rose to call attention to the future of London Underground; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the London Underground has a vital place not only in our transport system, but in the lives of millions of people who are obliged to use it daily in order to get to work. There is a somewhat bland statement in London Transport's last annual report to the effect that,
"the Underground recognises that reliability in some areas has fallen below acceptable levels".
I cannot help feeling that the majority of passengers would express that truth in rather rougher terms.
It would not be helpful to take a long dive back into history and I hope that the Minister will not do so either. It must be said that when the Government came to office the London Underground was already facing severe problems. However, in recent times the situation has reached crisis levels with little sign of progress.
In March 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister, full of the enthusiasm that, from time to time, powers—and even overpowers—him, introduced to Parliament a measure that is known to its limited friends as PPP. It is a partnership between the public and private sectors. Neither privatisation nor old-style public ownership, it was presented to Parliament as a miracle that would solve the problems of London's Underground. Under the scheme, the Tube itself, the station services, the ticketing and the drivers would continue to be the responsibility of London Underground, which would also be responsible for safety. When these
570
arrangements were in place, London Underground's functions would be passed to the Mayor of London. Arrangements were already in hand at that time to elect such a personage.
Under the scheme, London Underground would invite bids from three private groups. The successful bidders would each be given 30-year leases of a section of the network in which they would upgrade and maintain the infrastructure. The scheme has received and has deserved a chilly welcome. As the Mayor has frequently said, it would leave the operators of the tube altogether dependent on the private sector contractors to discharge their responsibility for safety. Similarly, an arrangement that covered prices only for the first seven and a half years of a 30-year period would leave the operator with very few cards in his hand. There were also doubts as to the wisdom of splitting a single network into three, with all the added complexity that would result.
The scheme, dear to the heart of the Treasury, since it would, at least for the time being, serve to keep the problem off its doorstep, has the footprints of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers all over it. However, he has been resolute in not becoming involved, washing his hands of the matter and declining to be told of the palpable defects of the PPP scheme. He would simply rather not know.
Meantime, the Government were going ahead with arrangements to create a Mayor of London who would eventually be responsible for operating the network. They had a brainwave. That nice, obliging Mr Dobson could be persuaded that here was a glittering future that would be rather better and more comfortable than a seat in the Cabinet and ministerial office at the Department of Health. He could also be relied on to see the merits of PPP, even if few others did.
Mr Livingstone then appeared—something of a cloud on the Government's horizon. He made no attempt to conceal his dislike of PPP. He thought that it would be a rip-off for the private contractors and that safety would be jeopardised. I understand that Mr Livingstone is something of a loner and one whom Ministers might find a slightly uncomfortable associate, particularly as he is equipped with a sense of humour and, from time to time, takes the opportunity to deflate people who take themselves over-seriously and to make their plans look ridiculous. He was, in due course, elected and, disturbingly for the Government, continued to declare that PPP would not work. On 3rd July 2000, he appointed Bob Kiley as Commissioner for Transport. Mr Kiley brought with him a formidable reputation for having redeemed the New York Metro. The Mayor also set up the institution known as Transport for London.
A paper war followed, the beneficiaries of which were few and far between, as long as one excludes the consultants. I remind your Lordships of Mark Twain's famous remark that the first consultant—having in mind the advice that he gave on the apples—was Satan. Much of the advice that the Government have received in this area has not been good.
On 13th December, Mr Kiley presented two reports to the Mayor. The first echoed his concerns about PPP; the second was a programme for the rehabilitation and management of the London Underground. On 15th December, the National Audit Office issued a report on certain strategic issues and the contractual framework proposed. I do not have time to say more than that the National Audit Office was not an enthusiastic supporter of the project. A further report by Mr Kiley to the Mayor was issued on 23rd February, based on fuller information as to the shortcomings of PPP. On 4th May, Mr Kiley was appointed chairman of London Transport by the Government. Then a new Secretary of State came along—Mr Byers. At one time I was inclined to see Mr Byers as the villain of the piece. He has been guilty of certain wrongdoing, but in that wrongdoing he has been subordinate to the arch-wrongdoer in this piece, who in my view is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There followed three independent relevant reports, none of which gave comfort to the Government or the supporters of PPP. The Institute of Public Policy Research indicated that there were,
"significant problems with the Government's current PPP".
The International Project Finance Association said that the,
"Government has ignored specialised advice on the scheme's flaws".
Later, a report on safety by Parsons Brinckerhoff indicated serious shortcomings.
Meanwhile, on 17th July, some six weeks after he had been appointed, Mr Kiley was sacked. I shall return to that point later. He was sacked partly because he was about to deliver a report by Deloitte & Touche into the shortcomings of the PPP. Having sacked Mr Kiley, the Government immediately took the matter to court to seek an injunction to prevent the report ever appearing in the public sector. The judge made it clear that the court was not ruling on either the safety or the value-for-money aspects of the PPP.
London Underground sought leave to appeal against Mr Justice Sullivan's ruling that the injunction be lifted. In the event, it was lifted, and the report proved to contain very little of commercial importance. However, it did have certain statements which, obviously, the Government found very embarrassing as they were critical of, and adverse to, PPP.
This is not the time or the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Secretary of State's handling of Railtrack. What can and must be said is that those who are now involved in negotiating the details of financial arrangements may well fight a little shy of a Secretary of State who clearly does not accept that goalposts are intended by those who place them to be fixtures and not easily moveable.
As I said, Mr Kiley was sacked as chairman of London Transport less than six weeks after he had been appointed and when he was about to present that report. In my view, that move reflected the desperation of the Government. They failed to suppress the report and they can now be seen clearly as having behaved
572
shabbily and rudely towards a man who knew more about the problem than either Ministers or their advisers. It remains to be said that the sacking was carried out in a way which was not only uncivil but downright rude. It was delivered in a letter written by the director general of the department concerned. In it he stated:
"Accordingly, the Secretary of State has regretfully concluded that you [Mr Kiley] are unable and unfit to continue properly to discharge the functions of Chairman of the Board".
Those words are usually loaded with insult, and they were on this occasion. I am surprised that a senior civil servant should have allowed himself to be the pawn of a Minister in writing such a letter.
Of course, the Secretary of State is responsible for that letter. But, as I said, he cannot be seen as much more than a protective barrier erected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to protect himself from responsibility and from a consequent wave of public opinion should anything go seriously wrong.
I do not believe that anyone who has served as Minister of Transport can fail to be aware of the way in which the Treasury has always shuddered at the mere thought of railways and of its seeming contempt for managers who, starved of resources, face insoluble problems. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has become a leading protagonist of such negative attitudes. What he and his advisers should now bear in mind is that London Underground is both necessary and permanent. It will not go away. The sooner the money required to refurbish it is found, the less will be the ultimate cost. The longer the Government and, in particular, the Treasury put off the evil day, the greater will be the ultimate cost. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Elder: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, on tabling this Motion and on his success in winning the ballot. I say at the outset that I could not agree with him more that the provision of money for the Underground is a key factor. It seems to be at least ironic that we should be debating the matter in this form now when we have a Government who talk about putting in the sums of money that every government should have been investing over the past 50 years.
All of us who use the Underground regularly—I have done so for the past 30 years or so—have a vested interest in getting the system back to being one that is comparable with those in overseas capitals. Some are modern and some, like Paris, are quite old. As is the case in relation to so much that was done in the 19th century, as a nation we have been content to use the resources left to us—the water and railway systems are other examples—but we have been far less willing to make the necessary continuing commitment in terms of investment and upkeep. That is as true of the Underground as it is of anything. In the 19th century, it was a world leader, as it was for much of the 20th century. After a further period of low investment and neglect, it has fallen to this Government, and this Government alone, to make the decisive move towards a more modern system.

573
The Government have been criticised in certain quarters for going down the road of privatisation when, in fact, they are not doing so. The Underground will still be publicly owned and run. They have been criticised for replicating Railtrack and for putting safety at risk when they are doing neither. London Underground will still run the Tube, and the public sector will remain in charge of safety and will demand the highest standards. It has been said that the whole system should be handed over to Bob Kiley. However, as a national asset—it should be seen as a national and not only a London asset—the Government must retain ultimate responsibility for the system, as clearly and rightly they propose to do.
I intend to speak briefly today and to concentrate on one key element of the Government's plans; that is, the question of value for money and whether or not the funding method proposed, with private finance, can give value for money when, demonstrably, that means of financing will be more expensive than public borrowing or a bond issue. On paper, that is indisputably the case.
I have always wanted to believe that the public sector can carry out as cost-effectively and as efficiently as the private sector any major or minor project. But I am afraid that, with a few honourable exceptions, the evidence is that that has not been the case. Cost overruns are the norm, and the best way for the public sector to achieve its objectives on time and to cost are by using the private sector. What should work on paper regrettably does not appear to work in practice.
Going back 30 years to my time at university, I convinced myself without qualification that the Soviet system worked perfectly on paper. However, experience since then has shown that it came a good deal short of working in practice. The reality is that, with investment on the scale envisaged, we simply cannot afford the sort of cost overrun that we saw occur with the Jubilee Line extension. That extension shows the quality that we want to achieve—that is undoubtedly the case—but not the way in which we should go about it if we want value for money.
We do not save by having public borrowing rather than private finance if the savings from the cost of the funds are entirely wiped out and more by a cost overrun on the whole budget. I am afraid that that has been the case far too often. It will fall to the private sector to ensure that the risk is managed in a way that will ensure that it manages the investment and invests in the quality of the assets. It will know that if it fails in its job, it will be its profits that will suffer.
That is a guarantee of the private sector's interest in the project, of the effectiveness of its management, and, as a result, of value for money for the public. That is the whole point of the PPP scheme, and why the Government should be supported in trying to make it work.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has asked Ernst and Young to carry out an independent review of the plans. When the time comes for the
574
National Audit Office to consider what has happened—as it surely will in order to follow up its initial report—the Government will be able to say that their preferred route for the spending of the money, via the private sector, meant that the public indeed got good value for money. We, the regular Underground users, will be able to take pride in what has been achieved.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I must congratulate the Government—that may not be how the Minister expected me to start. However, we all know that the public are interested only in services being delivered; they do not care much what is the structure that underlies those services. So it is a particular achievement of the Government that they have created so much interest in, and opposition to, their proposed arrangements for London Underground.
That is in part because of the controversy surrounding the public/private partnership. Although we all know—and the noble Lord, Lord Elder, has reminded us—that PPP is not the same as the structure for the national railways, the Railtrack fiasco has dealt a blow to public confidence in the Government getting such things right. I hope that that blow will not be fatal, but the Government seem determined to compound the problem.
I have an interest to declare—I wish it were more of an interest. I am a member of the Greater London Assembly; I am currently its chair. Our main job is to act as watchdogs over what the Mayor of London does. As regards the Tube, I should prefer to be doing that job on behalf of London's travelling public, its businesses and all its communities, rather than, yet again, finding myself criticising central government because they have not yet handed the Tube over to London's devolved government.
I could use the whole of my speech, and more, reciting facts about the appalling state of the Tube. I shall not; but I shall give a taster.
Over a 12-month period in 2000–2001, there were more than 3,500 signal and points failures and no fewer than 14,448 train breakdowns. Research by my honourable friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington tells us that the number of faults on signals, points and track has grown by more than 35 per cent in the past year. In answer to a Written Question in another place, asking how many lines on the Underground were subject to delayed or cancelled services on one day in October, a Minister gave details of incidents which were the cause of "significant" delays—I think that a delay is significant for that purpose only if it is longer than 15 minutes—which amounted to 903 minutes, or more than 15 hours.
London Underground's annual report, published in August, tells us that it failed to reach customer satisfaction targets set by the Government in seven areas, which include safety, service security and information—no small matters.
Transport for London's managing director of finance and performance has said publicly that he simply cannot understand why the results of opinion

575
polling among passengers indicate such high levels of satisfaction—contrary, perhaps, to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said. We have tried to explain to him that that is not because passengers are satisfied but because their expectations are so low. Whether passengers are impressed by expenditure on London Underground's current, "Your Tube", advertising campaign—no doubt not cheap—I leave noble Lords to guess.
The Minister told the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, on 29th October that the Government are "pressing" for swift improvement. Exactly whom are they pressing'?
None of that will improve until the future is settled. I am not 100 per cent supportive of the mayor's action in the matter. I have been openly critical of him for his attacks on London Underground's management. Calling them "dullards", as he did—and, no doubt, other things—has had the inevitable, perhaps intended, effect of some of the most senior management leaving and their posts remaining unfilled. Such events are bound to affect the whole complement. They must feel as if they are not valued—in part, because they do not know what will be their future.
The future and the date of change remain uncertain. I know that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will talk more about the possible future financial structure. The Minister told me last month in a Written Answer:
"The Government's intention is to transfer London Underground Limited to Transport for London after the long-term plans for the modernisation of London Underground's infrastructure have been put in place".—[Official Report, 29/10/01; col. WA 147.]
Well yes, that much we know. Briefing material that I received for today's debate describes the public/ private partnership as being "misconceived from birth". That may not be physically possible, but frankly that is not much more daft than are the Treasury rules which are so artificial and make such a sham of devolution.
Deloitte & Touche raised crucial concerns about whether the PPP is good value for taxpayers' money, and about the procurement process, which has led to the convoluted contract regime. London Transport sought to suppress publication of that report, and I for one was delighted that the courts took the view that a document of such public concern should, subject to a bit of tippexing out of the identity of the preferred bidders, be in the public domain. In the long term, the courts' support of transparency in such circumstances may be significant.
Deloitte & Touche is one of the plethora of consultants involved in the saga. We know that the Government have now engaged Ernst & Young to ensure, to cite the Minister:
"a proper independent and objective assessment … of the value for money of those bids".—[Official Report, 29/10/01; col. 1164.]
I do not know whether the Government do not trust PricewaterhouseCoopers, who are engaged by London Underground for this purpose, or whether they do not trust London Underground, which
576
engaged them. They may be running round hoping that someone, somewhere will give them the answer that they want.
The Channel 4 News economics correspondent commented that:
"PPP is supposed to yield efficiency savings. But it also brings uncalculated compliance and monitoring costs. No wonder the civil service spent more than £100 million on consultancy and legal fees, trying to prove it will work".
The Minister and I both know enough about how lawyers can create paper. The PPP relies on 135 separate contract documents, more than 2,800 pages of contract terms containing—I have no idea who counted this—2 million words.
As the paper mountain grows, so—despite the lack of dialogue between London Transport and the mayor and his commissioner, Bob Kiley—do concerns about the structure. There were recent threats of strikes on the Underground over facilities available to staff. In the normal world, people would rent a Portacabin. Under the PPP, with its 30-year time frame, they have to provide for maintenance for 30 years, so a Portacabin would cost £250,000.
From all those contracts, the finance market testing clause stands out as one that should concern us. It provides that, if financing is not available to an infraco—one of the private companies—or if the infra-co simply does not obtain financing by two months before each seven-and-a-half-year review date, TfL must either review the infra-co's obligations, so that it does not require financing, or pay the infra-co its costs as they are incurred. In other words, TfL must provide the financing itself. I take that to mean that if the infra-cos run out of money, or their backers or shareholders will not provide it, London's council tax payers will have to pick up the bill.
The cover of the Government's 10-year transport plan is labelled "integrated transport". That is an idea—an ideal—to which we all subscribe. Transport is not integrated in TfL's budget for next year—which, of course, must also take account of future years. I criticise TfL for not including any figure for the cost of the transfer—if the Minister can assure me today that it will be absolutely cost-neutral, I will go away happier than when I arrived—but I can understand its difficulty, as it has not been provided with the financial and performance information for the plan years involved. It simply cannot take account of it because it is not involved in the debate.
If something goes wrong with PPP, unlike Railtrack the infra-cos will simply lose their contracts. What exit strategy have the Government designed that will protect the public in those circumstances? Can the Minister say, having, still, an open mind about whether PPPs provide value for money and safety—and he assured the House about that—what is the Government's alternative? What is the Government's Plan B?
Earlier this week the Minister answered a question on turn-out at elections, and he did not need persuading that increasing the reputation of politicians and the political process is an important

577
ingredient. The public believe that far too much of this debate is about personality politics and that the Government are still frankly miffed that they do not have their own candidate in place as mayor. That may not be the case, but it is the perception. The public, too, understand that there are occasions when minds need to be changed. There is no shame in that. Indeed, it would do the Government's reputation a lot of good, and London's travelling public would cheer.

Afghanistan
3.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place.
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on events in Afghanistan.
"It is now clear that the Taliban has been decisively defeated across Afghanistan. Carefully targeted coalition bombing of its front lines opened the way for the Northern Alliance to advance. The fall of Mazar-i Sharif on 9th November was the key to the north. It accelerated defections from the Taliban and allowed General Dostum and Mohammed Atta of the Northern Alliance to cut the lines of communication of the remaining Taliban and Al'Qaeda troops in the north-east.
"One after another, Taliban positions folded: Taloqan; Baghlan; Bamian. The major city in the west, Herat, fell without a fight, to Ismail Khan. And now we see that the strategy we have pursued is being equally successful in the Pushtun south of the country.
"Kabul fell without serious resistance on Monday night. Key cities in the Pushtun south have followed Kabul swiftly in falling, including Jalalabad. It is clear that support for the Taliban is evaporating. Though there may be pockets of resistance, the idea that this has been some kind of tactical retreat is just the latest Taliban lie. It is in total collapse.
"There are reports today that senior Taliban figures in Gardez—including borders Minister Haqqani and intelligence chief Ahmadullah—have surrendered. Kandahar airport has reportedly been taken by anti-Taliban forces.
"Regrettable incidents have happened, as the liberated people have turned on their oppressors. This should not happen and I appeal to the Northern Alliance and all other forces in Afghanistan to be restrained; to avoid any acts of revenge; and to engage with the UN.
"I believe the whole House should welcome the progress that has been made. Though conflict is never easy, or nice, to see women and children smiling after years under one of the most brutal, oppressive regimes in the world is finally to understand the meaning of the word 'liberation'.
578
"I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding leadership that President Bush has given; and give heartfelt thanks to the British forces involved, now and in the future. There is no greater comfort to the British people than to know that we can call on some of the best armed forces in the world. Their work and their contribution to Britain's strength and international standing is immense.
"But there remain huge challenges. The military job is not yet done. Bin Laden is still at large. So are his close associates. The diplomatic and political situation remains difficult. The threat of a humanitarian crisis remains.
"I should tell the House that the United Kingdom will continue to play a full role in the military, the diplomatic and humanitarian tracks of this campaign, the objectives of which remain as set out in the document published in the House Library on 16th October.
"Our forces, so far, have been involved in the air strikes using Tomahawk missiles and through providing support to US bombers. On the ground, our forces have been involved in liaising with the people of the Northern Alliance, advising them and helping to co-ordinate action.
"I can confirm to the House that several thousand of our troops are being put on 48-hour notice to move in case they are required in the area. Those include elements from 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault Brigades, including 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, and 45 Commando Royal Marines, and a range of supporting assets including RAF air transport, support helicopters, engineers, logistic teams and explosive ordnance experts.
"I cannot give the House full details on how those troops may be used. Consultations with the United States and our other coalition partners continue. The main purpose of those troops would be in the context of multinational efforts to make safe the humanitarian supply routes now opening up as a result of military progress on the ground. Others may be focused on securing airfields and clearing unexploded ordnance; and ensuring the safe return of the United Nations and NGOs to Afghanistan, permitting the construction of the broad-based government that is so badly needed. They will only remain in place for a strictly limited period of time while an international force to work alongside Afghan military commanders is prepared. We cannot of course rule out some of our troops being used in offensive front line operations. 40 Commando Royal Marines remain at a high state of readiness for contingency operations.
"On the humanitarian front, I should say that an average of over 2,000 tonnes of food a day has been despatched since 4th November. That is four times the rate at the start of October when it was 500 tonnes a day. The WFP is optimistic about reaching its targets: it has despatched over 50,000 metric tonnes of food to Afghanistan since the beginning of October—sufficient for 5 million people for one month.

579
"We look forward to the opening of a corridor from the liberated areas to the borders with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In particular, the Friendship Bridge between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan will be made safe for the passage of those supplies.
"The UN and ICRC should now be able to improve delivery of food, healthcare and other assistance to 2 million vulnerable people in the northern region of Afghanistan. Plans are now being made for the international staff of the UN, Red Cross and NGOs to return to Afghanistan. In addition, we will be able to accelerate deliveries to areas in central Afghanistan which will become harder to access as winter sets in so that sufficient stockpiles can be built up closer to the people who need them.
"That will further reduce the suffering of the Afghan people and show the rest of Afghanistan that life for the entire nation will be better once the Taliban are gone.
"The advance of the anti-Taliban forces has been assisted by defections from disillusioned supporters.
It is time for the rest of Afghanistan—particularly the ethnic groups in the south—to join the uprising against the Taliban and throw off its oppressive rule. The sooner they act, the greater the benefit.
"The structure of post-Taliban Afghanistan will be for the Afghan people to determine. But we will provide strong diplomatic and economic support to the aspirations of Afghan parties committed to an inclusive, democratic political structure, committed to the welfare of all Afghan men, women and children, and providing substantial local autonomy.
"I spoke yesterday to Kofi Annan who outlined to me the process that will now follow. The first step will be an early UN-convened meeting of representatives of the various Afghan anti-Taliban groups (including Pushtuns) under the United Nations Special Representative, Mr Brahimi. That would lead to a transitional administration. To support that process under Mr Brahimi, the UN Security Council will be adopting a resolution to underpin the principles on which Mr Brahimi is working.
"The immediate next step is for the United Nations to establish a presence in Kabul. I am delighted that Mr Vendrell (UN Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan) and Mike Sackett (UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Afghanistan) plan to travel there on Friday. We plan to have a UK diplomatic presence in Kabul by the weekend.
"I have also spoken today to President Bush and to Chancellor Schroeder. The coalition is as strong today as it has ever been.
"As I said on 11th September, and have repeated many times since, although there can be no excuses for terrorism we must do what we can to address the causes and the injustices that the terrorists exploit. That is why we want progress towards peace in the Middle East.
580
"We must never forget why we are engaged t n this action: it is because on 11th September Al'Qaeda perpetrated the worst terrorist outrage in history. It is to bring them to justice, and to eliminate them as a threat to world affairs that we are acting as we are.
"Today, I have put in the Library an updated version of the evidence document we first published on 4th October. The new document will be translated into Arabic and Urdu and other languages.
"The intelligence material now leaves no doubt whatever of the guilt of bin Laden and his associates. On 4th October we knew that three of the hijackers were linked to Al'Qaeda. Now we know that the majority were. Indeed, the utterances from his and their own mouths leave no doubt either. Far from hiding their guilt, they gloat. On 9th October one of his spokesmen praised the September 11th atrocities as, 'a good deed' which,
'transferred the battle into the US heartland'.
"He warned:
The storm of plane attacks will not abate'.
"Bin Laden himself said on 20th October in an unbroadcast video tape,
If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists'.
"Mr Speaker, they are terrorists, and history will judge them as such. Before the history books are written, we will continue to hunt them down until we find them, for as long as it takes.
"They are guilty. They will face justice and today they have far fewer places to hide and far fewer people who wish to protect them.
"As we have made clear from the outset, the campaign against terrorism is much more than a military campaign—it is diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, legal. It has meant changing our laws to protect ourselves at home, working with others to protect ourselves abroad.
"And I say this to the people of Afghanistan: as we hunt down the murdering terrorists hiding in your country, they, not you, are our enemy. This time we will not walk away. Your future is in your hands, but our hands are there in friendship to help you shape that future.
"The people of Afghanistan have suffered grievously from a brutal regime, from conflict, from famine and from drought. We want to see a country with a government representing all the people of Afghanistan, occupying a proud place in the community of nations, growing economically, enriching its people, liberating their potential. A country that has suffered so much deserves no less.
"And let us be clear. The way the world embraces and supports the new Afghanistan will he the clearest possible indication that the dreadful events of 11th September have resulted in a triumph for the international community as a force for good, and the defeat of the evil that is international terrorism. A safer world is built out of secure countries representing all their people living in peace with

581
their neighbours. That is how terrorism will eventually be defeated, and that, step by step, must be the new international order that emerges from the worst terrorist atrocity in our history.
"Whatever the challenges, whatever the setbacks that lie along the way, I believe that is a vision, and a world, worth fighting for".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. It is entirely right that the Prime Minister came to Parliament to deliver it. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that we have seen a complete vindication of the strategy pursued by the coalition over the past four weeks, and indeed, of the wholesome and fulsome support given by these Benches? Had we heeded the cause of those who demanded a pause in the bombing, the coalition would not have achieved the successes it has. Nor would we be any closer to a situation in which effective humanitarian aid could get through. That is now a priority which faces the coalition.
The Prime Minister has been greatly strengthened by the support of a united Parliament. That broad parliamentary support will be needed in the long haul ahead. Can the Leader of the House give the House an assurance that there will soon be a debate on the Afghan situation and the role of British troops so that the whole question can be debated more fully?
We meet against a fast-changing political and military background. A major deployment of British troops could now be involved. That alone underlines the importance of further debate. It also reinforces the need for clarity in our purpose. What are our war aims? We began with the aim of destroying Al'Quaeda and bin Laden. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that it remains our central aim to pursue not only bin Laden but the whole international terrorist network relentlessly and ruthlessly for so long as it takes until the threat is destroyed?
To secure bin Laden we set out to remove from power the Taliban which was sheltering him. I am glad to say that that has now been done. The Taliban has been removed from power. Is it also now our aim to remove its capability to do further damage within Afghanistan? Given the welcome collapse of Taliban authority in many Afghan cities, will the coalition now be seeking to harass and destroy Taliban forces in the mountains? Is the Leader of the House in a position to say whether British forces will be involved in that process?
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the role played by the coalition forces so far, including the role played by our own Armed Forces. We support the decision to place British troops on standby ready to be deployed in Afghanistan should their presence on the ground be required. Can the noble and learned Lord go further and spell out the roles which he envisages will be played by our Armed Forces? I hope that we all agree that their objectives must be clearly defined. We
582
do not want to find our forces indefinitely garrisoning exposed military positions. Can he assure the House that the rules of engagement they are given will allow them to protect themselves in all circumstances? I wonder whether the words in the Statement read to the House by the noble and learned Lord are clear enough in that regard?
The last thing we need is a power vacuum in which ancient hatreds and rivalries resurface among the people and tribes which now exist in Afghanistan. The need to form a broadly-based administration that can command widespread support has never been more urgent. Can the Leader of the House say more about when he believes that will be achieved? Is he satisfied with the urgency of the United Nations' action in that regard? Can he also tell us at what level the United Kingdom's diplomatic presence will be, and whether he envisages a long-term role for the former king in the future government of Afghanistan?
Finally, I welcome the comments in the Statement on humanitarian aid. Few will forget the prompt action taken by the British government 10 years ago to help Kurdish refugees in harsh winter conditions. We have a narrow opportunity to act in Afghanistan before the winter. What are we doing now to deliver aid to those in the refugee camps and others displaced from their homes in recent weeks? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that there now has to be an intensive humanitarian effort by all involved to ensure that the aid gets through to those in desperate need? I wonder whether British troops will be used to help in that task.
It is essential that we do not relent in the fight against international terrorism now that it has begun. We stand four square behind our Armed Forces and the coalition effort. We will continue to do so. I hope that the noble and learned Lord recognises how much we share with the Prime Minister an admiration for the outstanding leadership of President Bush in recent weeks. The unity of purpose has brought us a long way, but there is still a long way to go.
4 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement made by the Prime Minister. It would be churlish not to recognise the remarkable function and role of the Prime Minister and also of President Bush in what has happened. We also recognise the work of the special forces, both British and American, and their remarkable achievement so far.
It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the situation which the Soviet Union encountered in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Taliban disappeared into the mountains, regrouped and returned to stop a Soviet attack which was marked by heavy equipment, a large number of soldiers and the brutal behaviour of those soldiers towards civilians. Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that reports of the collapse of the Taliban are borne out by intelligence and military information? I recognise that he cannot reveal all he

583
knows, but some of us are concerned because under the Soviet invasion the Taliban previously retreated into the mountains, bogged down almost all of the Soviet armed forces in the mountains and then returned to seize large parts of the country. is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that it is reasonable to talk about "total collapse"? Does he agree that we should not yet regard the war as over, as the media have begun to describe it, perhaps too soon?
Secondly, it is vital at this stage to try to win the support of the population of Afghanistan. In that respect, I am concerned by the report that liberated peoples may be visiting their vengeance on those whom they feel to be responsible for their oppression and suffering. One must admit that the record of the Northern Alliance as warriors is outstanding, but as people with a fine sense of civilised values rather less so. There are already troubling reports from Mazar-i Sharif and elsewhere of extreme actions by the Northern Alliance. No doubt part of that is attributed to their success, but part of it is likely to be attributed to inadequate guidance on the way in which they should treat the civilian population. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that messages are being received by the Northern Alliance to the effect that it is vital that it needs to win the support of the civilians of Afghanistan, which requires proper behaviour towards them?
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord was understandably encouraging about humanitarian aid, which was good to hear. Does he believe that there is any chance of getting aid through to the south? We understand that around Herat, which has fallen, many people are at the edge of starvation. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the centre and the north, and we are grateful for that information, but perhaps he can address that further issue. As regards the food which is being sent to advance positions, are there strategies for fanning it out into the villages which are being cut off, perhaps by air drops, in order to ensure that they receive the food that they desperately need?
Fourthly, I want to ask the noble and learned Lord a brief question about the rules of engagement, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Will the rules of engagement relating to our own forces permit them to protect civilians in situations in which they may be at risk? The noble and learned Lord will recall the difference between the rules of engagement under which our forces were restrained in Bosnia, where they had no permission to protect civilians, and in Kosovo, where they had. There was then a substantial difference in the role which our troops took. If the noble and learned Lord cannot comment on the rules of engagement, perhaps he will be able to do so on another occasion.
I turn to the role of the United Nations which the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, in repeating the Statement, made clear was of vital importance. I want to ask two questions. There has been a report that the United Nations special representative indicated that the transition could last for as long as two years. No doubt that is to allow for the refugees to return and for stability to be
584
established. What steps, if any, have been taken so far to establish an international committee to supervise the setting up of a government of the Afghan people, given that half the population—namely, women —was not represented in the previous government and that there is a great problem of proportionate representation among the tribes, which differ among themselves?
My final question relates to the refugee camps, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We understand that they are still in considerable financial difficulties as regards caring for the refugees, particularly in Pakistan and Iran. Once again, we on these Benches—and we do so frequently—request the Government to consider with the coalition underpinning the financial cost of the refugees in those desperately poor countries in order to show how much we want to support them in their charitable and humanitarian work.
4.5 p.m
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am truly grateful for what has been said by my two colleagues on the respective Opposition Front Benches. It underlines the fact that anyone who works closely with the Prime Minister recognises what a remarkable man we have at the helm of this country in extremely difficult times.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was pleased that both the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, paid tribute to him. The noble Lord was right to point out, not in a partisan way, that on every occasion we have had the full-hearted support of Mr Duncan Smith. I pay tribute to him also.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is right in saying that the successes in swift moving circumstances are a vindication that the Government were right to be resolute not to have a pause. The noble Lord was right in his historical resume. If there had been a pause, we should not have had the successes. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that they are successes so far and we still have a long journey to negotiate.
Our purposes have been plain. Our immediate purposes were to bring Osama bin Laden and his fellow criminals to justice; to close down the Al'Qaeda network; and to take action against the Taliban regime which sponsors both. Turning to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, our wider objectives are to end the terrorist threat on Afghan soil; to tackle the machinery—his particular point—of terrorism world-wide; to deal with the immediate humanitarian crisis; and thereafter to help to

585
reconstruct Afghanistan society, including—the noble Baroness's particular point—as broadly based a government as we can assist to be brought about.
We intend to pursue international terrorism. That is the whole underpinning theme of the legislation which my noble friend Lord Rooker will be introducing. Your Lordships will have to make difficult choices on those occasions. They will have to be faced and they need to be faced while remembering why we are here on such occasions.
As regards the role of our Armed Forces, the main purpose of any British troops will be in the context of multi-national efforts to make safe the humanitarian supply routes which are now opening up. Some of our troops may be securing airfields, clearing unexploded ordnance, and assisting the safe return of the UN agencies and non-governmental organisations to Afghanistan. However, I repeat what I said earlier—I appreciate that only two of your Lordships had advance copies of the Statement—that we cannot rule out some of our troops being used in offensive frontline operations.
I know from my previous employment that the rules of engagement are constantly reviewed. The more prudent course, if it is acceptable to your Lordships without being discourteous, would be for me to speak privately to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in order to give them appropriate details. I do not believe that it would be wise or prudent, or necessarily right, to go into detail about what our Armed Forces can and cannot do in the difficulties of instant decisions. But of course I accept that the House is entitled to know, and I know that your Lordships will trust the party leaders opposite to receive the material from me.
The matter is urgent and I do not believe that I could have said anything more focused. We intend to have diplomatic representation in Kabul by this weekend. The United Nations will be there on Friday. If I had read out this Statement and had said that two weeks ago, your Lordships would politely but firmly have come to a certain conclusion about my mental state of health. These are remarkably fast-moving circumstances. In the nature of things, one has to be cautious about coming to conclusions which may soon be vitiated by the alternative track of events.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the former king. He is part of the equation. We have to work with the United Nations and in particular our international colleagues to give the people of Afghanistan the opportunity to make their choices. If the king features in their choices, essentially that must be a matter for them. But we shall give all assistance we can to whatever proper choices they wish to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about humanitarian aid. Of course we are eager to assist with the refugee camps. As the ultimate goal, we want people to be able to go to their homes. I am not being complacent. Having told your Lordships recently that we were hoping to reach the figure of 1,700 tonnes,
586
2,000 tonnes a day is a very considerable achievement in difficult circumstances and in the recent context of three years of drought and decades of civil war.
Of course one bears in mind what happened when Russia invaded Afghanistan. No one is under the slightest illusion about the magnitude of the task we face. There are troubling reports—I do not know how accurate they are—about atrocities and who caused them. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. One cannot simply be content to substitute one barbaric tyranny for another. I believe that the messages are getting through. We have a powerful influence far and away beyond our military force. I repeat—it is not a party political point—that no one should underestimate to the slightest degree the powerful effect that the Prime Minister of this country has had, particularly when mean-minded people urge him for domestic political advantage to attend to domestic matters when he has been doing this country's work magnificently well.
There is the problem of the south. The Statement was right to concentrate on those areas where we are succeeding. There is much to be done in the south.
I recognise the validity of the point about aid for refugees and the assistance of the United Nations. I do not think that this country has been ungenerous in either effort or resource and we intend to continue along that path.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. Congratulations are richly deserved with regard to the way the Taliban has been dealt with over recent weeks.
As the noble and learned Lord reminded us, two objectives spelt out some weeks ago remain to be achieved: bringing bin Laden and Al'Quaeda to account. If British Armed Forces are deployed to Afghanistan in pursuit of those objectives, under what command arrangements will they serve? It would be extremely helpful for the House to know exactly what command arrangements may be employed. Will they be entirely national or a mixture of two? What proposals do the Government now have?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always I am most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. He asks a specific question about command and control arrangements. Circumstances have been moving rapidly. The present position is that detailed command and control arrangements have not yet been decided but plainly—I am sure noble Lords will approve of this—we shall be working as closely as may be with the United States and our other coalition partners.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, noble Lords will agree that we should be grateful for a Statement which confirms that we can now move on to a more positive, pragmatic and happier stage of this crisis. Can the noble and learned Lord reassure those of us who continue to fear a continuing and long-term cycle of violence in Afghanistan by confirming that our

587
Government have a realistic expectation that the Northern Alliance is reasonably committed to the transitional arrangements which he has outlined? Is it also reasonably committed to a long-term pluralistic government for Afghanistan which includes the Pushtun and other elements representing the population of the south?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am hopeful that that outcome will come about. I think that noble Lords will recognise that it is a mistake to speak of the Northern Alliance as a monolith; quite the opposite. There is a vast amount of work to be done. I have no doubt myself that the only way forward is on an internationally co-operative basis. I hope the House will agree that critical to this Statement is the central importance that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has, the very important role of Mr Brahimi and the fact that everyone at the outset is saying that it must be done on an international basis. But there is no tradition of pluralistic democracy. We have difficulty in getting people to live together in parts of the United Kingdom. It is a long job. We shall have to try to change, encourage, coax and sometimes coerce people—not militarily, I hope—to behave in a civilised way when their past recent history has not been civilised.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend about the state of play with the United Nations. Clearly there will have to be a Security Council resolution setting out the views of the Secretary-General on how matters should now proceed. Can my noble and learned friend tell us when that meeting is likely to take place? In the press this morning I read that one or two people are already saying that the United Nations is being slow about assuming responsibilities in this matter. There has to be Security Council cover for it. It is important that that cover should be obtained quickly.
It seems to me to be fairly obvious that there has to be some kind of UN direct presence—peacekeeping forces or whatever label one likes to put on it. There will have to be a fair number of soldiers in blue berets in Afghanistan. Do the Government envisage our possible contribution to a peacekeeping force being present in Afghanistan until the UN takes over? It is important that we should get the timing right. I shall be grateful for anything my noble and learned friend can say.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again I agree with the thrust of my noble friend's remarks. It may be helpful if I revert to the Statement. It states:
"The immediate next step is for the UN to establish a presence in Kabul".
Mr Vendrell—he is, after all, high level; he is the Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan—and Mr Sackett, the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Afghanistan, will go to Kabul on Friday. If there is reproach against the United Nations for not getting on with things, I respectfully suggest that it is not properly and appropriately levelled.
588
Plainly matters are moving very quickly. It is impossible at this stage, and it would be imprudent, to come to absolute conclusions about what our troops will be doing in what circumstances because any prudent commander will weigh up changing circumstances. There is no doubt at all that the United Nations will play a critical role. I repeat one sentence from the Statement:
"To support this process under Mr Brahimi the UN Security Council will be adopting a resolution to underpin the principles on which Mr Brahimi is working".
I think that that answers my noble friend's specific question.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that gratitude to him for repeating the Statement is bound to be somewhat tempered by the fact that most of the facts and figures, including the identity of the units concerned, was available on the BBC and in the morning papers? Would it not be nice if sometimes Parliament were the first to hear about these things?
May I ask the noble and learned Lord a perhaps more practical question? Will the earmarking of substantial numbers of British troops to be available for employment in Afghanistan, possibly for some time, have any impact on the earmarking of forces for the European Rapid Reaction Force?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am always sorry if material gets into the public domain before Parliament is aware of it. But I do not believe that anyone could reasonably say that the Prime Minister in the other place, and I as his messenger here, have not been diligent in keeping the Houses fully informed as soon as possible. After all, we invited Parliament to be recalled on three occasions and quite rightly. I do not know how the material got into the public domain. People talk sometimes and when decisions are made not all military men necessarily vow themselves to silence. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has had experience of such matters in the past. There was certainly no discourtesy intended to Parliament. I hope that the Statement which I read to the House was full and sensibly consistent with the occasion.
I cannot give a definitive answer on the European Rapid Reaction Force. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was just gently floating a little fly across this particular trout knowing that the trout could not really nibble at it this early.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of the changed circumstances in Afghanistan and the fact that the war is clearly now switching more to ground level activity, would it not be possible to scale down the bombing campaign? It has been that campaign, with its inevitable civilian casualties, which has caused opposition among various groupings, and in particular among Muslims, in the past.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is undoubtedly true, and no one should deny the fact, that casualties have occurred and they are deeply

589
regrettable. It is undoubtedly true, as my noble friend says, that that has caused anger and opposition among some sections of our communities. But the fact is that the Taliban is on the run because of the bombing. It is also the fact that we are now able to move in 2,000 tonnes of food every day because of the bombing.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may associate the Back Benches on this side of the House with the tributes that have been paid to the Prime Minister for his leadership, to the British Armed Forces and I hope also to the humanitarian workers who now have a vast task ahead of them because the race against the winter is going to be very tough indeed.
Further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Richard, can my noble and learned friend clarify one point? I am sure that we all take great heart from the emphasis which is being put on the role of the United Nations and the work with it. Can we be assured that the deployment of British troops pending the arrival of a UN presence in any form is itself authorised specifically by the United Nations and the action that the Security Council has taken?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, within the bounds of international law, we are entitled legitimately to carry out the action that we have taken in Afghanistan. As I have said on previous occasions—I hope that I shall not bore the House too much—Article 51 gives the right to self-defence and there is also Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Indeed, two specific United Nations resolutions were passed post 11th September. But I want to reassure my noble friend by referring again to the words of the Statement. It states:
"The first step will be an early United Nations convened meeting of representatives of the various Afghan anti-Taliban groups (including Pushtuns) under the UN Special Representative, Mr Brahimi".
I am happy to repeat that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, are all right to warn against premature euphoria. I remember that Napoleon thought that he had beaten the Russians when they evacuated Moscow. The Russians later defeated him because of his immensely extended lines of communication and a very severe winter. The difference in this case is the enormous lifting power of air forces.
Every time the Prime Minister has made a major pronouncement on these affairs, he has rightly drawn attention to the necessity to adjust the world order after these events in order to see that they do not recur. I heartily agree with that. But it is not necessary to await the end of the campaign which may continue for some time yet in Afghanistan in order to start planning the nature of that re-ordering and the means of achieving it. I wonder whether the Leader of the House
590
can tell us what steps are being taken to make that preparation and to take Parliament into the deliberative stages of it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful. There are a number of different aspects here which need to be looked at discretely. First, what can we do domestically to deal with terrorism? We have been derelict for far too long because we have not pursued resources and financial assets and we have not necessarily had the full and appropriate equipment in the criminal law. That is an aspect which is going to be dealt with in significant part, I hope, if Parliament agrees, in the anti-terrorism legislation, which will be with us very soon.
Secondly, what has the Prime Minister been able to do by influence rather than by realpolitik power; in other words, the power of argument and personality rather than the power of battalions? What has he been able to do to change the world agenda? I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is early days, but I believe that he has made a very significant start. But one country cannot do it alone. It seems to me that the wider context must inevitably lie with the United Nations. If we want an ordered international regime there is one body which has been available for a very long time now, but perhaps has been insufficiently used. That is the third aspect to which I draw attention.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister reassure me on what may seem to be a small point? I know that the marine commandos are accustomed and equipped for winter warfare when training in Norway, but there is talk of putting 20,000 of our troops into Afghanistan in winter. Do we have the equipment for them so that they can maintain themselves in that appalling climate?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall not speculate about the risk to other people because I do not believe that is right. I shall not speculate about numbers. It is quite plain that it would not be right for any government of this country or any commanders of its Armed Forces to deploy troops who were not adequately equipped to carry out their operations in such dangerous circumstances.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, why is there secrecy about the rules of engagement? All the troops will have to know what they are, so they will soon become public knowledge. Am I right in believing that there is now a human rights dimension which controls the behaviour of individual troops? Therefore, does the noble and learned Lord agree that this aspect needs very careful scrutiny and examination?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, obviously, the rules of engagement are always scrutinised very carefully because they have to be compliant with our international legal obligations. That is a duty on the British Government. In any event, it would be unacceptably irresponsible to commit troops without clear rules of engagement which protected them and

591
on two bases; first, so that they were plainly acting lawfully; and, secondly, that they had sufficient protection for themselves.
Of course, in due time it may that the rules of engagement will filter out, but I do not believe it is my work and job to assist any potential enemy of this country by talking about matters at this stage when they should he kept a good deal more confidential.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the Statement mentioned the return of the non-governmental organisations. That will be widely welcomed especially if passage is made safe for humanitarian assistance. But have the Government considered the contribution that the NGOs could make to civil society on a temporary basis, particularly as the people of Kabul are not enamoured with the present authorities?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right. Plans are being made at the moment for the international staff of the United Nations, the Red Cross and the NGOs to return to Afghanistan. Plainly, they will be carrying out essential work for the attempted construction of post-Taliban civil society.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, in the past, British assistance to the office of the United Nations Special Representative in Islamabad has always been appreciated. Will the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House be sympathetic to future manning requests?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords, in principle. Of course, one looks at the practicalities and at resources, but that is the thrust of our policy.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, have our troops been provided with adequate clothing and equipment for winter conditions in Afghanistan?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have attempted to deal with that point. No British government and no British commanders are going to put men in positions of danger without their being properly equipped. I shall not go into any further detail. To do so would be irresponsible.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that even when bin Laden and Al'Qaeda have been tracked down and brought to justice in Afghanistan, the Government's commitment to take action against other terrorist groups and other governments who protect them will not in any way slacken? Will he also confirm that, if necessary, military means would be contemplated in dealing with those situations as well?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord has enormous experience of these matters. He is quite right. He has had recent experience of some regimes which have had indifferent histories in the context of terrorism. We cannot stop merely having taken action in Afghanistan. It would be a betrayal of all our
592
efforts. This will be a long haul, as the United States administration has said and as the Prime Minister has repeated on so many occasions. In response to the noble Lord's second question, it seems to follow that if we are entitled lawfully to use force, that can never be an option that we can exclude.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following the trend of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will my noble and learned friend assure us that the great success of the coalition in toppling the Taliban will not deflect from the need to act on some of the contributory causes to the act of terrorism that took place in New York? I refer in particular to the situation in the Middle East and to the statement by the President and the Prime Minister that a Palestinian state should be founded and that we should accelerate negotiations towards that end.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a distinct section of the Statement made exactly my noble friend's point; namely, that it is critically important to continue with Middle East peace efforts. It seems to many of us in all parts of the House that there is an opportunity at the moment which, if lost, is unlikely to recur, and that the dynamic of our times is moving very quickly indeed.

London Underground
4.33 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Peyton on initiating the debate and on his devastating analysis of the Government's plans. I followed directly behind the noble Lord as Conservative Transport Minister—albeit there was a gap of five years between us due to some "electoral leaves on the track" between 1974 and 1979.
I had one advantage over my noble friend. When I arrived, the Department of Transport was a separate department and not part of the Department of the Environment. In that, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, followed the example and policy of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Frankly, that is a better way of organising transport at the Whitehall level than the decision made in 1997 to include transport in the giant Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I do not think that transport benefited from that decision. Transport policy is one of the most important areas of national policy, and London Underground is of crucial importance in that regard.
Perhaps I may make four brief points. First, I believe that we should recognise the fundamental importance of London Underground. The system has vast potential. We are fortunate that the Victorians had not only the foresight but also the enterprise to invest in the way they did. The urgent task now is to develop a system for the 21st century.

593
No one can conceivably doubt that need. London's roads are already clogged up. New houses and flats are being built in the centre of London, which will make some roads near to impassable. We are told—and I agree—that good public transport is the answer. But we all know the reality. Trains are often overcrowded and dirty and rolling stock is often out of date. Stations are often inadequate to serve the public. The new Underground station at Westminster is an example of what can be achieved, but regrettably there are not many examples of that kind. And services are frequently unreliable, even on new lines. The point was made from the Liberal Democrat Benches that on October 23rd there were 15-hour delays across all 10 Underground lines. That is the worst-ever figure ever on record in the history of London Transport. It included three and a half hours of delay on the new Jubilee Line extension. One can only imagine the impact that that had on hundreds and thousands of travellers in London. In short, I do not believe that anyone can be remotely satisfied with the service as it stands.
My second point relates to the need for new investment. There is no conceivable doubt about that. Investment under both governments has been inadequate. Ministers speak of the previous Conservative government as though something happened that was peculiar to that period; but I remember taking over as Transport Minister after a period of capital cuts under the preceding Labour government. Looking back makes for an arid debate. We should concern ourselves with going forward; and we should note where the debate has now taken us. Next to no one now believes that we should leave this matter to the Treasury. As my noble friend Lord Peyton said, it is the belief of almost everyone that some new means of funding is urgently required. That is why the previous Conservative government pursued privatisation options—which in my view had significant advantages. That is why Mr Livingstone and Mr Kiley have proposed the bond option, based on the United States' experience. I can see some advantage in that.
But the Government have embraced neither of these options. They have set out on a course of their own—namely, contracting out. They do not call it "contracting out"; they call it "public-private partnership", but contracting out is exactly what it is. They intend to ask the private sector to take responsibility for the maintenance of both the infrastructure and the trains. Their argument is that,
"London Underground is a transport operator, not a construction and maintenance specialist".
That is precisely the argument that I used in the 1980s, when contracting out ancillary services inside the health service such as cleaning and catering. But I have to pose the question: are construction and maintenance on a par with ancillary services in the National Health Service?
The Government have even gone a stage further in their argument on the benefits of their position. According to one of their Ministers, Mr Keith Hill, who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DETR, the Government were providing,
"a much more unified system".
594
I have to say that this is not the universal view about what the Government are providing. Indeed, I cannot think of anyone outside the ranks of government Ministers who has even advanced that case.
That brings me directly to my third point, and to my most fundamental criticism of the Government's proposals. Putting operations in one set of hands, and all the other functions in another, seriously weakens the management of the whole system. Who is in charge? Who takes responsibility? Where does the buck stop? All those are questions one should ask about any management organisation. We all know what will happen if there are difficulties; the operating side will blame the track side and vice versa. The position will be made no easier by the fact that one part is in the private sector and another part is in the public sector. My central fear about the Government's plans is that that is a recipe for internal conflict. That division of responsibility seems to me to be the fatal flaw in the whole plan. To divide in the way the Government are dividing is, frankly, a curious way of running a railroad. That applies to a railroad whether it is above the ground or below it.
The Government say that this is not a repeat of what happened with Railtrack. I am glad to hear that because although I am a confirmed privatiser I was never in favour of the division I mentioned. I notice that the Minister smiles wryly at that. However, before he smiles too broadly, I think he will agree that you can be in favour of reform although not all the detail, as that is precisely the position of the parliamentary Labour Party in the other place with regard to the Government's proposals on the reform of the House of Lords.
I remember putting my criticism about the division between the operating side and Railtrack before a very senior civil servant who replied that my solution—which was a different solution—was romantic. Doubtless those same civil servants are now writing briefs showing how their plans could never have worked in the first place.
Finally, as a frequent user of the Tube, I observe that the Government have said little, virtually nothing, about the culture of management of London Underground. Perhaps we are so content with the management of London Underground that we believe no improvement is possible. Perhaps we are so content with the industrial relations position that we believe that no improvement is possible. If that is the case, it does not entirely co-incide with my view as a customer—if that is how I am seen and I sometimes doubt it—at the local level faced with too frequent threats of industrial action. Figures on that are difficult to come by. The same Mr Hill, who was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the time of the creation of this unique, unified system, stated in a Written Answer on 9th April:
Information on the number of staff days lost due to industrial action could be provided only at disproportionate cost".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/4/01; col. WA 384W.]
Most of us who have had any experience of government recognise only too well the defensiveness of that Answer.

595
My overwhelming feeling about the Government's proposals is that they constitute a lost opportunity. Perhaps it is inevitable that they will not accept any privatisation scheme, even the kind I favour such as the one I introduced with the National Freight Corporation in which staff were given a stake in the business or even, for example, the successful Docklands Light Railway scheme. However, if that is not to be adopted, I believe that there are advantages in the bond proposal. At the very least it gives the opportunity not only to generate new finance but also strong management and it is strong management that this system needs. I suggest that what will not work is the kind of divided management responsibility which the Government support. It is a system which provides inbuilt conflict and, frankly, that is the last thing we want. My fear is that if the Government continue down that track, in spite of all the advice to the contrary—goodness knows, there has been a whole deluge of advice to the contrary—we shall be back here in a few years debating yet again the future of the London Underground. That would be a tragedy and would constitute a missed opportunity for reform.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for providing us with the opportunity to debate this matter. The debate is fundamentally about underfunding which applies to so many of our public services, not solely the London Underground.
Of course there have been a whole variety of delays in injecting the additional investment that is required in our public services. We on our side of the House acknowledge that. However, I think everyone must accept that we at last have a government who endeavour in a variety of ways to put right—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—the wrongdoings of the past. The Government are injecting long overdue investment into education and health. They have also raised transport investment in the order of national priorities and have given it a significance which, frankly, even when the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was in office, it did not enjoy. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—I emphasise that point—are to be not so much criticised but congratulated on the strong leadership which they have given in this area, in particular in the run-up to the general election in June where we set out our policies very clearly indeed. The choices between the different parties were made available for the public to see. Of course, those were fully endorsed in a most resounding way in the general election result.
First, investment in our public services has to come from a variety of sources, not solely taxation. I do not believe that anyone, even our friends the Liberal Democrats, would argue that it should come solely from taxation. It is important that the Government and all of us continue to explore all the avenues open to us to secure the maximum return for that purpose. I am one of the limited group—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—who are prepared to speak up for public-private partnerships, unpopular though
596
that may be in some quarters. I say that because I believe that PPPs exist in a variety of different forms. I do not think that one size fits all. The IPPR report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred, concluded—if it is read carefully—that broadly it was in favour of PPPs, but strongly made the point that each needs to be structured to address the particular problems which it is trying to resolve. That is what I urge the Government to do.
I speak on this topic with a little unique experience. I declare an interest as I am now a government appointed non-executive director of the recently established PPP for National Air Traffic Services Limited. That matter was subject to a good deal of debate in both Houses and, unlike the proposed PPP for the Underground, was attacked as a privatisation. From my experience, having now seen that PPP established since 28th July, I can say that in no way is that new organisation a privatised corporate entity and neither will the PPP which is envisaged for the London Underground be such a body. NATS has seen a substantial injection of private capital which was badly needed and investment on a scale that has not been seen for too many years. Most European air traffic management systems are similarly underfunded and gravely short of capital investment. That is a cause for concern for all of us. Here at last we now have a system which at least guarantees investment flows in the coming years.
Secondly, some private sector skills have been brought to bear. In light of my previous experience in the public sector, I know that that has started to produce changes that have long been needed. People from the former NATS—it is now NATS Ltd —say that they have wanted for several years to address those changes but have been unable to do so; they are embracing the changes with much alacrity. They are bringing rigour and discipline to the management structure and the organisation. That can be uncomfortable—it has proved to be so initially —but in my view the approach will bear fruit in the longer term. Benefits will flow primarily from the introduction of the PPP set-up. In the short-term, there are unexpected but substantial problems relating to NATS operations. They could not be foreseen or taken account of in any business plan—they relate entirely to the unfortunate events of 11th September, which have thrown us off course. Regrettably, the tragedy earlier this week in New York will not have helped—it will have adverse effects on the operation of the PPP.
Notwithstanding those difficulties, the organisation is responding positively. A close and supportive relationship is developing between all those involved—my main message today is that they are endeavouring to build a proper partnership. We have to consider different structures for PPPs and have a positive approach with regard to building relationships between all the relevant parties.
What has probably impressed me most about the new organisation is its commitment to maintaining the previous safety standards within NATS and to considering ways in which those standards might be

597
made even more demanding. Safety is truly paramount in that PPP. If we get the structures right, there is no reason that that will not similarly be the case with regard to the Underground.
If the coming value-for-money tests are passed, the public will expect investments and they will want improvements in service to start to be apparent. People want the quality of their travelling life in London to be improved; they do not want a continuing political wrangle.
If the proposed PPP contracts had been put in place on 1st April 2001, would not an extra £5 million have been injected every day since that date into the Underground's infrastructure? Secondly, for how long is the injection of that investment in the London Underground system likely to be deferred? Thirdly, might the mayor of London take legal action when the value-for-money tests have been concluded? If so—if there continues to be no movement in that regard— does the Minister agree that that would be an outrage to the travelling public in London? Finally, if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were with us, I should implore her to continue her efforts as chairman of the GLA to ensure that we bring this wrangle to a conclusion as soon as possible, so that we can start to ensure that London Underground travellers get the service that they so richly deserve.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, because I recently appeared before his sub-committee in relation to energy security.
To my certain knowledge I can affirm that for the past 15 years—possibly for very much longer—we have regularly addressed the subject of the Underground. We have done so by asking Questions, in debates and in other forms. The reason for that continued interest involves the abiding problem—the basic problem—of under-investment. However, the situation was worse than that. I remember an occasion when a previous government decided on a three-year plan for investment, which was somewhere near the level that was required not only for current maintenance but also for future investment. However, in the immediately succeeding year, the plan was cut. It is no surprise that in those circumstances management was demoralised and many of the best people left. Inadequate and uncertain investment led to inadequate management.
The present Government have recognised that problem; as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out, there is no doubt about that. They have accepted that an adequate flow of investment over an adequate period of time is needed—they are committed to an investment of £13 billion over 15 years. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to whom we are indebted for this debate, and other noble Lords have frequently discussed the way in which that is to be done. The simplest way would have involved an injection of government funds that were properly accounted for or
598
the money could possibly have been raised in the City on the basis of bonds, as has been done successfully in the United States. However, the Government chose an alternative route, which has been the subject of continued debate and which has led to unfortunate delays in getting investment into the Underground. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, drew attention to that.
In the mean time, it is regrettable that the system has continued to decline. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed out, the number of delays that are due to signal failure and points failure has increased. We are faced with a situation in which, although everyone agrees that more investment and determined management are required, the system continues to deteriorate.
How could that be put right in the present circumstances? I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. First, on the face of it, the PPP is apparently going to introduce a system of divided responsibility. Everyone agrees that if the management of such an important enterprise as London Underground is to work successfully—indeed, this applies to any enterprise—it needs to be unified; there needs to be somebody who is in control. In the circumstances of the PPP as the Government presently envisage it, how is that unified management control to be achieved? That is the first point on which we should like some reassurance.
Secondly, there is the question of accountability. To whom are the infra-cos going to be accountable? To whom is London Underground going to be accountable? Will they be accountable to Transport for London or to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? The noble Lord, Lord Elder, suggested that accountability could continue to involve the government department. We need to be clear about that.
Unified responsibility is a matter about which we want to know, and accountability is another. Accountability is going to be a complex matter so far as the infra-cos are concerned. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, no fewer than 135 different documents have dealt with the issue. They raised all kinds of ways in which the infra-cos will have to deliver under their contracts. Nearly 2 million words have been written. How is this mass of material to be translated into practice, and who is to go through it in order to see that the infra-cos do what they are committed to do? Therefore, we need some clarification on the question of accountability.
Thirdly, how will this tie in with the responsibility of the mayor to introduce "a safe, integrated, efficient and economic" transport system for London, having regard to his misgivings about the whole system? It does not appear to augur very well for the PPP that ultimately it should be put in the hands of someone who is fundamentally opposed to it. How is that problem to be resolved?
I believe that I have referred to some of the basic issues which confront us. We all want to see an effective solution to the problem of London Underground. We all agree with the Government that extra funding on a consistent annual basis is required

599
so that not only current funding but future investment requirements are met. But we still have doubts about how that is to be achieved for all the reasons which have been deployed in the debate so far.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for initiating this very interesting debate. I note that the debate is concerned with London Underground's future, not its past. The future is inextricably linked with the present. In order to plan for the future we must study what is happening in London now. We cannot look at the Underground in isolation; it is part of the London transport system. We have heard today about closures and delays lasting hours on the Underground. Increasing numbers of passengers use London Underground. Whereas there was once a morning and evening peak hour, today there is never a slack period on the Underground. At whatever time of day one travels on the Underground, there is barely a seat to he had.
I do not know whether the trains are learning from buses. Unfortunately, trains have developed elephant-style timing and arrive in clumps, which never happened. Today, two or three trains may arrive at one or two-minute intervals followed by an eight-minute break. I am aware that there have been a good number of station closures, real emergencies and hoaxes. I know also that escalators are being replaced at many stations. Like the holes in the road referred to by my noble friend Lord Peyton, escalator replacements appear to go on for ever. We have also heard about signal failures. I believe that too much money is spent on refurbishing and glamorising the interior of Underground stations when passengers would much prefer to have more train services and greater reliability.
Buses are very important. I have just seen a report of 96 pages dated October 2001 commissioned by Westminster City Council entitled West End Entertainment Impact Study. That report deals with the problem of getting people out of the centre of London at night. Unfortunately, it makes clear that the Underground cannot possibly run 24 hours a day, which would be desirable, because most of the maintenance is done at night. Whether it is possible to reduce that problem without the Underground I do not know, but it is essential to have adequate replacement transport during those hours.
In the West End there are 2,350 premises licensed to sell liquor, and 128,000 music and dancing venues. The Coventry Street pedestrian flow peaks between 11 p.m. and midnight, but there are more people on the street between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. than during the morning rush hour. How to deal with that great influx of people is a very serious problem.
London is a national centre for tourism, but the West End—the very heart of the city—is the destination of 95 per cent of visitors to the capital. The number of licensed premises per square mile is greater than any other place in the United Kingdom,
600
continental Europe or North America. There is a trend towards larger bars which support even greater numbers of people. It is essential to be able to deal not only with all the people who want to travel to London for entertainment but the staff who service those premises. Staff must travel to and from work, often at very anti-social hours, and at present they rely heavily on late night buses. There is a need for change in that area. Instead of Trafalgar Square being the only centre for buses, there should be other areas where people can access more transport facilities. In the view of many people, London is a 24-hour world city. Many clubs discharge up to 60,000 people between 3 a.m and 5 a.m. every day.
Many of the methods which are intended to get people around London do not really work. As to cameras in bus lanes, I am delighted that there is now greater enforcement. It is no good having bus lanes unless they are enforced. On many occasions one sees a bus lane completely obstructed by a parked vehicle, even with its hazard lights on. It prevents taxis and buses from using that lane.
But there is no point in having bus lanes unless there are buses to use them. When I was a member of the Greater London Council one of the objectives was to decide whether an area was suitable for a bus lane. Unless a certain number of buses per hour used a particular lane, traffic was allowed to be more free flowing. I believe that we should look at the possibility of allowing cars containing more than three people to use bus lanes. We should also think about whether there is a way in which minicabs can identify themselves after they become a registered form of transport in London. Noble Lords will be aware that for many years I was closely involved in the legislation involving minicabs. At last, by 2002 all minicabs in London will be registered and standards will improve.
It would also be good if in some way people could be speeded along. We have gone mad and narrowed every street and restricted speeds. I am all for restricting speed, but there are a number of humps and humps. There have been debates in your Lordships' House about the danger and damage done to ambulances and police cars which must travel at a certain speed. I believe that people want traffic that is cleaner and moves faster. By "faster" I do not mean more speed but the ability to move in a better way. The bus lane from Heathrow has been amazingly effective, in that it has narrowed the traffic in that area to just two lanes. Whereas three lanes funnelled into two, now the bus lane has automatically slowed traffic and prevented the awful jam that one experienced all the time.
There is a need to do other things. I believe that a tunnel under Hyde Park to take traffic from north to south would be a good idea. Nowadays, toll roads are common—I saw them in Melbourne—and that may be a favourable way to deal with these matters.
There need to be improvements in the phasing of traffic lights. If one travels along Great George Street towards Parliament Square one knows that during each phase only three or four cars will get through.

601
I believe that a change of only one or two seconds will make for more free flowing traffic. Above all, we need a quick decision in favour of CrossRail.
I was involved in your Lordships' House with the Jubilee Line extension. At that time Wilfred Newton was the chairman of London Transport. He told me that when he built the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway the whole thing was up and built in much less time than it took for the legal processes of getting planning permission for the Jubilee Line extension. So people should not be surprised that it took that long, cost that much and that there were so many delays.
The procedure was bad in those days when transport issues came as private Bills through your Lordships' House. Now there is a public inquiry procedure for transport matters, it can be much worse. I feel horrified that the Terminal 5 decision has been delayed yet again. I conclude by saying that I am worried about PPP. My noble friend Lord Fowler mentioned the National Health Service experience of PPP. It has been totally disastrous and expensive. We have mortgaged the future of the National Health Service. We should not do the same for London Underground.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, spoke strongly in favour of PPP. Of course I was not surprised about that after the noble Lord told me that he was a member of such a board. How could he be anything but supportive of that idea? The noble Lord was certainly giving a prejudiced view of it. He said that all the people involved were "building relationships between all the parties involved". That is all very well. I do not mind them doing that. But I want to see some real results and not just spending time windmilling everything around among themselves. I therefore was not too cheered by his remarks.
The noble Lord referred also to the value for money tests being approved. I am sceptical about that because we hear regularly at Question Time that a report on the money side is being suppressed. As a member of the public I automatically react unfavourable to that. I ask: why is the report not being made public; why is it being suppressed? It is essential that we do everything we can to make life better for people who live and work in London. The Underground is a most important part of that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we have had a continuing problem of under-investment. Over the years we have been to lunches together at London Transport. We have been told that one of its major difficulties is having a short-term budget that enables it only to plan year by year instead of being able to make long-term plans. There is a real need to know where one stands financially. I am sorry to say that I do not think that PPP is the way to do it.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on initiating the debate today. Two weeks ago, in our debate on the railways, I drew attention to the fact that
602
there are now eight former Secretaries of State for Transport in this House on the Benches opposite. Today, we have had the pleasure of hearing from two of them. In the railway industry the period of office of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is looked back on as something of a golden age. It was the one occasion when the department managed to take on the Treasury and largely win many of the battles.
This is a timely debate. It gives us the opportunity to make clear how very different are the Government's plans for London Underground, compared with what has happened with Railtrack. The critical question that we must ask is whether the Government are in danger of repeating with the Underground the massive mistakes that their predecessors made in the privatisation of the railways.
A week last Friday I attended a public meeting on transport convened by the Wimbledon Civic Forum. It was a strictly non-party political occasion, at which about 100 residents discussed these issues in an unemotive but concerned way, with the help of speakers from the SRA, from Transport for London and the Railway Forum. It was clear that those present equated the Government's plans for the Underground with what the Conservatives did to Railtrack and that as a consequence there was strong opposition to the PPP.
The Wimbledon audience was not aware, for example, that the Government had considered, and rejected, a not-for-profit trust as an option for modernising the Underground. It also did not appreciate how the Government are determined to give absolute priority to safety, with the Health and Safety Executive given responsibility for enforcing a double lock on safety.
At the end of the evening—I stayed fairly quiet while all this went on—I felt like recalling Oscar Wilde's complaint after the first night of "Lady Windermere's Fan" in 1982, which was:
"The play was a great success. but the audience was a total failure".
That brought home to me how much work the Government have to do in winning over opinion for their proposals. I must say to the party opposite that people hardly believe a word of what the Conservative Party says on transport issues because of the Railtrack legacy. Indeed, they recall that until just before the recent general election the Conservative Party favoured outright privatisation of the London Underground. It proposed breaking up the Tube into five groups of lines and then selling them off for ever.
I understand that that is no longer Conservative policy. I look forward to hearing from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, what they believe should replace outright privatisation.
Much as I dislike having to admit it, Londoners tend to believe what Mr Livingstone and Mr Kiley have to tell them on these subjects. I notice that they have become rather improbable heroes of the Benches opposite.

603
Let us remind ourselves what is the London Underground problem. For decades the Underground has not been properly funded. To make matters worse, government funding was chopped and changed from year to year, so that Tube managers could not invest effectively. From 1979 to 1997 average core investment was just £395 million a year. So by 1997 there was a massive investment backlog. Since 1997 core investment in London Underground has increased to around £530 million a year—better than before, but still not enough.
With economic growth and increased tourism, overcrowding, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said, is a daily problem, as those of us who use the Tube know only too well. It is not just a question of rush hours, it is all day long. Too many trains are still cancelled. One in 20 peak trains do not run. That produces awful knock-on effects for other services. Broken escalators take too long to fix. Some stations have been neglected almost since the day they were built. So everyone agrees that the Tube needs massive investment to bring it up to modern standards.
As things are, London Underground projects are often late and suffer huge cost overruns. The Jubilee Line extension was two years late. It is still not running at full capacity despite a cost overrun of £1.4 billion. We are all familiar with the "signalling problems in the Canary Wharf area" excuse as the reason for delays and cancellations as we try to get here to Westminster. London Underground enhancement works currently overrun by an average of 20 per cent on budget. Even allowing for a lower overspend on simple maintenance works, that amounts to some £2 billion over the next 15 years.
Therefore, the choice is either between the Government and the taxpayers keeping the risk and passing it on to passengers and London taxpayers, with funding dependent on the good will of the Treasury, or the PPP approach with government and taxpayers sharing the risk of overruns and delays with the private sector and achieving steady investment. It is not as if London Underground is not already working in partnership with the private sector. A forerunner of the PPP was put in place on the Northern Line. Trains now are far more reliable thanks to the new maintenance regime operated jointly by London Underground and its private sector partners.
On the Docklands Light Railway, the £200 million PPP delivered the Lewisham link two months early and on budget in 1999. Another PPP is planned to link the DLR to London City Airport. The PPP proposals bring in the first committed long-term investment programme of £13 billion over 15 years for the Underground, with higher public sector support than ever before. PPP companies will be paid by results and charged for poor performance. To reduce risk and avoid penalties the companies therefore invest as early as possible in the most reliable systems and technology. This is not a Railtrack-style privatisation. The public sector will run the trains and deliver the service to the public, as well as own the network.
604
During the travelling day, around 12,000 London Underground staff will run the system. At night, thousands of workers in consortium companies will do what the private sector does well, which is to manage maintenance and construction work efficiently and effectively. Some of the biggest and most respected construction and engineering firms in the world are among those bidding to work on the London Underground PPP.
What do we hope can be delivered? First, the public sector will continue to own and operate the Tube. The Tube map, travelcard and integrated services will all remain in place. Private sector companies will be contracted to carry out maintenance and upgrades to tracks, signals, stations and other infrastructure. That should mean that services will be faster and more frequent. Fewer breakdowns and delays will take place and thus services will become more reliable. The PPP will also update the technology—today around one-half of all train cancellations are caused by equipment failures. The public sector will co-ordinate the works. For example, one would not see both the Northern and Victoria Lines closed at the same time for upgrade work, which is the kind of problem that has been encountered in the past.
Every train on the Underground will be replaced or refurbished over the course of the PPP. Similarly, every London Underground-owned station will be refurbished or modernised over the next seven-and-a-half years. Over the first five years of the contract, 52 out of 255 stations will be fully modernised. Congestion problems will be tackled at overcrowded stations such as Leicester Square and Brixton.
Safety and security should be improved. The independent Health and Safety Executive will continue to ensure safety on the London Underground. Many more stations will be fitted with security cameras, while every carriage will carry CCTV for passenger safety. Fares will continue to be set by the elected Greater London Authority under the mayor. The PPP does not require fares to rise faster than inflation.
Because of the great ignorance as regards the Government's proposals, I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to confirm that my understanding of the PPP is broadly correct. First, given that the PPP is based on fixed-term contracts rather than permanent transfers to the private sector, assets should return to the public sector after they have been upgraded. Secondly, the PPP will retain clear public sector accountability from the outset. It will put Transport for London firmly in charge of the overall planning of the service and will ensure that the public sector London Underground retains statutory safety responsibility for the whole network.
Thirdly, private companies will maintain and upgrade the network for the period of the contract, but public sector London Underground will run the whole network. Fourthly, no separation will be made between train and track infrastructure maintenance. We shall see no equivalent of Railtrack, where that company was responsible for track and signalling on

605
the one hand, while separate companies were responsible for the trains on the other. For each Tube line, one company will be responsible for the maintenance of both trains and infrastructure.
All that should mean that the PPP will provide exactly the kind of integration in maintenance that disappeared from the railway with privatisation. The companies will be responsible for fulfilling contracts for the maintenance and modernisation of infrastructure and rolling stock. Thus every aspect of the London Underground system with which travellers come into contact will be in the hands of London Underground Limited, a public sector company. It will be in charge of all operational matters, from changing signals to driving trains and to staffing stations. The public-private partnerships will be very different from wholesale privatisation. Strategic control will be maintained by the public sector, which will report to the mayor.
In my view, the proposals that I have outlined are a sensible way to lever in private sector investment and project management expertise while preserving the necessary safeguards that the travelling public expect. I am sure that, if all these points were properly understood, we would see much greater backing for what the Government are seeking to achieve. I shall certainly do my best to give them my support and to win the argument that I know my noble and learned friend also seeks to win.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for introducing the subject, to which I imagine that we shall return again and again. I do not have the confidence expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, in the new arrangements to which he has just referred. We need single-minded management of the London Underground. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, referred to "strong management". I do not believe that we shall secure that if the system is divided in the manner just described to the House.
The management has to be intent on running all the trains listed in the timetable. At certain peak hours, an estimate of 5 per cent of trains not running to time or cancelled is a sad underestimate. That means paying close attention to detail on matters such as the recruitment and retention of staff, as well as attention to failures of equipment such as rolling stock, signalling and escalators. It also means paying attention to rates of staff sickness and absenteeism, and on insisting that the trade unions behave like 21st century organisations by giving up their Victorian attitudes when making outrageous demands of London commuters.
No management will be able to concentrate on such matters if it is distracted by discussions about where investment money should come from. At the moment, the management team at London Underground is extremely distracted. It is currently extolling the
606
virtues of the PPP. Of course management needs a sure source of money, but it ought not to care from where it comes. It cannot do everything.
At the same time, the Mayor for London cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds by pretending to be on the side of the travelling public while, at the same time, he is on the side of the trade unions. However, that is what he is trying to do. His responsibilities lie overwhelmingly with the public, especially as he has stated his intention of introducing congestion charges in the not too distant future.
I conclude in the first place that management should be clear that its job is to provide a first-class service; it is not management's job to indulge in the niceties or otherwise of the PPP, of whether the Treasury will provide the money or, indeed, our preferred solution, which is that the money should be raised from bonds. I also believe emphatically that the wheel and the rail belong together in a partnership. I believe that that partnership will be split apart by the PPP, which will be fatal to the operation of a proper Underground service. No doubt all noble Lords realise that that would be the case, given the sorry saga of Railtrack.
Over all the time that the problem of the PPP stretches, not only do we distract the management of London Transport, but we allow the mayor and his team—which includes Mr Kiley—off the hook of taking full responsibility not only for the Underground itself, but also of taking responsibility for the introduction of congestion charges. I should remind noble Lords that the congestion charging scheme, which was set out in the manifesto and included in Mr Prescott's famous Green Paper, must be introduced. It is not an option; we must introduce congestion charges. In her contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, drew attention to the problems being encountered in the West End. My noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned in her remarks that, in his Green Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister had given a commitment to these developments.
I have checked this morning and the financing favoured by these Benches, which includes using the bond system, is still available. Furthermore, it is still available despite the events which took place in America on 11th September, in spite of what has happened at Railtrack, and in spite of what was said yesterday in another place about that company. We are very much in favour of raising the necessary funds for the Underground in this way. As we know, the bonds will be serviced by that most secure method of funding, passenger fares.
I do not believe that the public want all the property and station developments which feature in the PPP; they want a good, reliable service. That is more about trains than about stations, although I imagine that the stations are writ large in the plans of the developers.
We believe that the mayor should have the money, because until he gets it he is not accountable to anyone; he can sit on the sidelines and watch what is going on. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ezra about

607
accountability. The mayor should be accountable to visitors and tourists to London, as well as to the businessmen and the people who live here and use the Underground in large numbers every day. We hope that the mayor will go on to account to the electorate for his stewardship of the Underground. However, as matters stand at present, he can blame everyone else for what is going on. He no doubt will. He is a very astute politician, if nothing else.
We on these Benches believe that the mayor has made promises he cannot deliver. He has talked about a 24-hour Underground system, but we know that parts of the Underground need to be closed for quite some time in order for it to be properly maintained. You cannot have this and rebuild the Underground at the same time.
We are all in two or more minds about where CrossRail will go. Each week we seem to have different terminals for something which we are still a long way from building. Thameslink 2000—it was called Thameslink 2000 because it was supposed to open in 2000—is still tunnelling its merry way through the planning system.
This is a Government who promise a great deal in transport but do absolutely nothing. Nothing is being done. We hear all the time about what will happen; we do not hear what is happening.
The mayor promises more frequent services in the inner suburbs. That is at odds with the requirements of the longer distance travellers and the commuters who live just outside London, where there is not room to meet what he wants and what they want. Again, a lot of work has to be done if we are to get the suburban railway services he wants in those parts of London which are not served by the Underground and are otherwise very poorly served.
I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, about bus lanes because they are a substitute for the Underground. The noble Baroness may not be happy with enforcement in London, but it is non-existent outside London because the rules, I believe, apply only to London, not to anywhere else. There are bus lanes outside London, but the amount of enforcement is ludicrously small.
This Government stand accused of not prosecuting the difficult transport decisions. This is but one of them. I hope that in his reply to the debate, the noble and learned Lord will tell us what the Government intend to do to make life a little better for people in London and elsewhere.
5.34 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for introducing the debate. He, of course, is a former transport Minister and he has kept up both his interest and expertise in the subject in this House.
This is one mess that the Government have got themselves into for which not even the noble and learned Lord can blame the previous Conservative government. It is entirely a self-created mess. The
608
Government's plans fail their own first test, which was set by the Labour Party in its 1997 manifesto. They promised that,
"Labour will improve the Underground and guarantee value for money for taxpayers and passengers".
The Government's proposals have been described by the Economist as, "half baked and either naïve or dishonest". The Select Committee in another place called their plans "a convoluted compromise'',
The Government's plans arose out of trying to square the circle of public ownership and private money. They came about after rows within the Labour Party about the part privatisation of the air traffic control system. The Government have come up with a cobbled together compromise called PPP— public private partnership. In the process they have fallen out with their mayor, Ken Livingstone, and have tried to discredit Bob Kiley, the head of Transport for London. After John Prescott prevented Mr Kiley from seeing vital documents concerning the proposed PPP, the Government launched an attack on him. They forced Bob Evans, a senior civil servant, out of a job because he refused to spin against Bob Kiley, and we have heard from my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil about the letter that was sent.
The Government also promised that if independent evidence were produced to show that PPP does not offer value for money, it would not go ahead. Yet, when faced with the Deloitte & Touche report which showed a lack of value for money, they sought to bury the report and resorted to the courts. Luckily, the High Court ruled that the Government should not have suppressed the report.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the executive summary of the Deloitte report. It stated:
"We have seen no evidence that there is a valid basis for establishing that PPP will achieve value for money using commonly accepted techniques for projects of this nature. The selection of a 30 year contract for this purpose is flawed because bidders were not required to submit firm prices for the whole period".
No one can deny that London Underground needs investment. Like the rail industry, it has suffered from a historical lack of funding. However, we must be mindful that the Tube is running often at near full capacity and we cannot expect large increases in passengers without major long-term capital projects. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked the Minister about CrossRail. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what is the position with CrossRail? Will it go ahead? If so, when, and how will it be funded?
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, the Government's record is one of broken promises. They promised recently £775 million of investment, but, when the Secretary of State announced the figures, suddenly there was 30 per cent less. That means cuts now in spending on safety improvements; cuts in spending on maintenance of lifts and escalators; and cuts in spending on other infrastructure.

609
I do not totally blame the Minister because we know that the PPP policy has been forced onto his department by the Treasury. The Chancellor will do almost anything to get spending off his books, even if it means a greater cost in the end to the taxpayer and to the passenger.
Through PPP, the Chancellor is transferring a huge risk to those funding the improvement of capital assets, but they will not own those assets. The private sector does not trust the Government after the Railtrack fiasco, but it will now be asked to become financially responsible for risks on assets that it does not own. The City banks working on loans for PPP are clearly saying that forcing Railtrack into administration has dented the City's confidence in supporting large infrastructure projects. The effect will be that lenders will charge more for the £4.5 billion of loans required. We know that those considering investing will demand a 35 per cent or higher return. Do the Government consider that good value for the taxpayer? When did the Minister's department last communicate with the financial institutions involved in financing the PPP deal for the Tube? What reservations have these financial institutions expressed about their continued involvement in PPP since 7th October?
Perhaps the Minister may care to answer the question put by his noble friend Lord Barnett to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, on Monday, when he asked whether the Government would,
"publish a paper indicating how calculations are made as to value for money in the case of a PPP as compared with financing the projects through the Treasury".—[Official Report, 12/11/01; col. 365.]
We certainly did not receive a satisfactory answer on Monday. It has been suggested that the Government should allow London Underground to raise money through bonds, as the New York City Transit Authority did. That is not privatisation, but it might be a cheaper way to raise money.
Bringing private investment into a nationalised industry is not just about funding; it is also about changing the culture by introducing concepts of service and value for money for customers, brought about by investment, expertise and efficiency. The worry is that PPP will not deliver any of those. It separates management and the renewal of the infrastructure from the running of the trains and the interface with the passengers. The operation of the trains and passenger services is where private operators can make a difference, but under the Government's proposals there will not be any real incentives for maintaining and improving the frequency of trains or for upgrading the rolling stock.
We do not even know when PPP will come about, let alone when it will deliver improvements. We understand that a contract is supposed to be signed by the end of the year, but that now looks optimistic. The Government's plans are already running two years late. When do Ministers expect to sign the first contracts?
610
I understand that there are two main contracts for 30 years, covering refurbishments and maintenance. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they are so complex that they run to 2 million words.
We hear that the Government plan to split the Tube into four sections, with three franchises responsible for the lines. The running of the trains and the maintenance of the signalling will remain the responsibility of the public sector. It is a bizarre scheme. Even the Minister seemed to agree, during a recent debate on Railtrack, that the train operating companies are an improvement. How does he explain such a different approach for London Underground?
As I understand it, the aim of PPP is to refurbish all the stations by 2008 and the trains over 18 years. After the end of the contracts, in 20 or 30 years, the ownership will revert to London Underground. Will the contracts include new lines and route extensions? My understanding is that they will not. Perhaps the Minister can explain how new lines are to be funded.
We know that the Health and Safety Executive will have a role. Can the Minister confirm that the HSE has yet to approve the complex and detailed safety plans? When does he expect the report on safety? There is concern that the Government's proposals put safety at risk.
The Minister and his department have achieved one magnificent feat—they have put forward a proposal that everyone seems to hate. Mayor Ken Livingstone hates it, but he will end up being responsible for it. The unions do not support it and nor to industry experts, for cost and safety reasons. I challenge the noble and learned Lord to name someone, apart from the Chancellor, who supports PPP funding for the tube.
While this mess continues, passengers suffer, trains are late and commuters are desperate to find other ways to work. I feel sorry for the staff of London Underground. They do their best and it is not their fault that the system is such a mess.
My noble friend Lord Fowler reminded your Lordships that the Evening Standard called Tuesday 23rd October "Black Tuesday", because there were 15 hours of delays on 10 tube lines—the worst on record. It may be true that many Londoners do not care whether London Underground is in the private or public sector, but they want action from the Government. They want improvements and accountability and they want them now. The Government have wasted five years. Their objective should have been to improve the reliability of services as well as building new lines to increase capacity. Under the Government's plans, that will take longer, fares will go up and, as with Railtrack, the poor old passengers will continue to suffer.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, we have heard the approach that the Liberal Democrats favour, but we still wait with interest to hear what the Conservatives would do.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is a debate on the Government's proposals for London Underground,

611
not the Opposition's. When, as I hope, I sit where the noble and learned Lord is sitting, of course the noble Lord will be entirely within his rights to question me on my proposals, but this debate is about the Government's proposals.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for three reasons: first, on winning the ballot so that we could have this important debate; secondly, on his contribution, because, although I disagree with a great deal of what he said, he delivered a speech that electrified the House and defined the issues; and, thirdly, on providing a template for transport Ministers, because, if what my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester said is right, the noble Lord presided over a golden age in which he always won the significant battles against the Treasury. One solution to providing certainty of long-term investment might be to find a clone of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, so that the public could always be sure that such battles would be won. Unfortunately, no such process is yet known to man, so we have had to seek other solutions for the Tube.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it was kind of the noble and learned Lord to say that, but I have not so far been swept off my feet with gratitude to the Treasury as to admire them or wish them a long life.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I had noticed, my Lords.
Every speaker in the debate—with the exception of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—came back to the essential point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. The noble Viscount did not grapple with the issues and, although the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked the noble Viscount what his solution would be, he gave no indication of his ideas for the way forward, unlike everybody else who has spoken.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that it is the job of the Opposition to oppose?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Viscount would make a constructive contribution to the debate and give us his ideas on the way forward, as everybody else did.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, in his excellent speech, that the Government's advisers had led us down the garden path and we should never have gone for the PPP. Instead, he said that we should have left it to Mr Kiley to run the Tube, because he is an experienced man who could provide the solution. Stripped of all the personalities and politics, that is the noble Lord's argument. He said that the Treasury could have provided the money and that would have been the way forward.
Everybody else in the debate has rightly identified two essential problems for the Tube. First, how do we ensure long-term commitment to finance? Secondly,
612
how do we make sure that that finance is properly managed in ensuring the quality of the infrastructure? The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, suggested that we should go on as before. What is the evidence on that? The Jubilee Line extension was a considerable period late and had cost overruns of between £1.4 billion and £1.5 billion. Is that a sensible way forward? I suggest that it is not.
Raising finance on the bond market is another suggestion to find a way forward. It is absolutely right to say that that is probably cheaper than many other methods of raising money, but a cheaper method still is to rely on money from the Treasury. London Underground's record on previous projects shows what happens when we do that.
The cheapness of the money is not the issue, although it is one element. Borrowing on the bond market has no effect on the management. Something more than just cheap borrowing is needed.
What about the romantic solution that I think the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, suggested? He seemed to advocate privatising London Underground and breaking it into five separate bits that were operated separately. I am not sure if that is his policy or t hat of noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who rather grumpily tells me that it is not for him to tell me what his policy is. Does anyone believe that dividing the system into five is the way forward? We have experienced the effect of Railtrack. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was, I believe, shrewd and sensible not to let on because, if that was his policy, it would not find much support.
Therefore, the suggestions put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton, Lord Fowler and Lord Bradshaw, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, do not meet the problem. The problem is a very difficult one and we have wrestled with it. The solution that we have come up with is to keep London Underground together in operational terms. The line, the trains, the stations and the service to the customer will all remain with London Underground. However, it will enter into long-term contracts for the maintenance of the track and the improvement of the infrastructure with the infra-co companies.
Who are the infra-co companies? They are, first, expert contractors who know how to deal with the work. Secondly, in many cases, they have been carrying out work for London Underground for a considerable period of time, but they have been doing so on a short-term rather than a long-term basis. By entering into these contracts, they will have commitment to London Underground in the long term and a real interest in ensuring that they deliver high quality services.
It is difficult to reach a conclusion about what to do. It is difficult to ensure that one delivers a quality service to the people who use London Underground, but it is a vital obligation of any central government to ensure that that happens. However, we have worked through the detail and have reached this conclusion. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, reminded us that the first consultant was Satan. He then referred to

613
other consultants who advise his side of the argument. He said that they are right and that our consultants are wrong.
The analysis that we have carried out produces a result that refigures the management and brings about a step change in relation to the maintenance and organisation of the track and the stations. However, it also keeps the whole organisation together and keeps it in public hands. We consider that to be a sensible solution. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me to name someone apart from the Government who supports that solution. I take one name at random: Digby Jones of the CBI believes that it is a very sensible way forward. So do we, and, subject to the infra-co contracts being value for money—that will be attested by independent advisers to both London Underground and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—and with the NAO watching the whole process, we believe that we shall be able to proceed in a way that will deliver better services for Londoners.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in considering these contracts, does the noble and learned Lord agree that he has developed a system where the buck never stops? He has therefore discovered the secret of perpetual motion and is much to be congratulated.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, certainly not. Under the arrangements that have been made, London Underground will be responsible for running London Underground. It will enter into long-term contracts. It will be responsible for delivering the service and will be accountable to TfL. Once the PPPs are completed, arrangements will be made to transfer the service to TfL, who, in turn, will be accountable to the mayor. I do not believe that entering into a long-term contract means that one passes the buck round in a circle; rather, one identifies precisely where responsibility should lie and places that responsibility with people who are expert at dealing with it.
Having dealt with the central argument at the heart of the debate, perhaps I may go on to deal with particular points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, made the point—in my submission, correctly—that it has fallen to this Government to deal with the problem after years and years of under-investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that we should not talk about the past. It is worth pointing out that under the previous government investment went down and down. If the plans of the Conservatives had been followed, investment would have decreased from £160 million to nil. However, I agree that we should not talk about the past; we should talk about the future. We need to have a system in place for the future which will ensure that we do not experience the cost overruns of the scale that we saw in relation to the Jubilee Line extension.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have heard about cost overruns on the Jubilee Line ad nauseam. That project
614
did overrun. First, it was subject to the collapse of the Austrian tunnel method at Heathrow Airport, and work stopped for a considerable time. Secondly, the line had to run in time for the opening of the Dome. That placed the unions in an extremely strong position and they extorted vast sums of money to finish it. However, let us consider the East Coast Main Line and the Channel Tunnel terminal at Waterloo. Those were public sector contracts which were delivered before time and on budget. Because a project is placed with the public sector, that does not necessarily mean that it will be overspent or done badly. The case of the Jubilee Line is a bad one but it is a special case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I suspect that we could debate the detail of the Jubilee Line extension at considerable length. At the end of the process, the American contractors, Bectel, were brought in to ensure delivery on time, and they did. That appears to indicate that expert management can often produce significant results in relation to a contract such as that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, congratulated the Government on making the structure of public service issues such an important matter. She described in graphic and impressive terms what is wrong with London Underground. We do not dispute the figures that she gave indicating the urgent need for an improvement in the service. She also said that the way forward must be settled so that progress can be made. We agree emphatically with that. A decision has been made to proceed with the PPPs, and the right course is for all the parties involved to make those PPPs work. She said that transparency is important. I could not agree more.
The noble Baroness also had concerns about the structure. She asked what is the Government's alternative—their "Plan B". The answer is that we believe that we can make the PPP work, and we are currently engaged in that. She also said that the issue is too much about personalities. I believe that she is right. We should all be trying to make the solution work.
In his very clear and excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that transport should be separated from the Department of the Environment. He will be glad to hear that that is what happened immediately after the last election. He said that it is an important area of policy, and I agree with that.
The noble Lord also said that one must recognise the importance of London Underground. As I said earlier, we regard it as a vital national asset that must be made to work because of the importance of the success of London and the importance of the Underground to the people who use it. He said that ensuring that the Tube service was fit for the 21st century was an urgent task. I agree entirely with that proposition. He stated that there was a need for new investment. Again, everyone would agree with that. The PPP will bring in that investment over 30 years.
The noble Lord also referred to the privatisation option. Again, I have indicated that that was never on the cards. I repeat that the suggestion of breaking the

615
company into five separate parts—I am not clear where the noble Lord stands on that—does not sound a very sensible idea. He referred to the bond option. We say that that would not bring about a sufficient change in the management structure. One must focus on improving the management as well as focusing on the issue of where the cheapest money is to be found in the money market.
The noble Lord said that the proposals amount to no more than contracting out. In one sense, he is right. It is contracting one aspect of what must be done in relation to the Tube service, first, to the people who know how to do so and, secondly, those people must have a long-term commitment to the delivery of the result.
He said that the system should be more unified. Perhaps I may deal with that point. We have kept the system together. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester made clear, this is quite different from the Railtrack privatisation, which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in a moment of admirable candour, indicated that he utterly opposed at all stages. Well done to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The same sentiment was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He made clear throughout the process of that legislation through both Houses of Parliament that he opposed the proposals for the nationalisation of Railtrack in 1992 and 1993. It is a unified system, because London Underground retains the whole operation of the system. It is not like Railtrack, where one person runs the track and a plethora of operating companies run various trains.
The third point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was that operation in one set of hands is important. We agree; that is what we have achieved. We have contracted with the contractors to provide the services needed. He then talked about an opportunity lost. He mentioned a privatisation scheme but did not specify what it was, and therefore gave us no clue what opportunity it was that we lost. As I said, we have thought long and hard; we have taken advice—though I hardly dare mention it—from consultants; this is the solution that meets the problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, gave us the benefit of his experience on the board of National Air Traffic Services and said, as I think that we would all agree, that one size does not fit all. Solutions need to be tailored to the circumstances. He said that the effect of the creation of NATS was to lever in private capital, which meant that investment would flow for the coming years, which is vital.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stressed the importance of certainty of investment, and emphasised that there must be constructive relationships. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was slightly dismissive of that point. She said that she did not disagree with the proposition that constructive relationships are important, but they are extremely important when there are several people who must agree on the way forward. The travelling public want agreement so that the way forward can be settled and taken. 616
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned under-investment and uncertainty of investment—about which everybody would agree. That is what the PPP is intended to address. The PPP will ensure adequate flow of investment over a period. The noble Lord referred to Treasury money and bond money; I have dealt with both. Obviously, Treasury money would be the cheapest. But where is the certainty over a long period? How would we achieve the necessary change in management?
I have dealt with the question: is divided responsibility sensible? There will not be divided responsibility; there will be unified responsibility. On accountability, infra-cos have a long-term contract with London Underground. After the PPPs are in place, London Underground will report to Transport for London; TfL is responsible to the Mayor of London. How does that relate to the mayor's obligation to produce a safe and efficient transport system for London? He will have political responsibility for TfL; the scheme will be up and running; it will be his responsibility to ensure that it works.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, gave an important description of the need for London Underground. She referred in particular to the problem of night life in London; she referred to London as a world city and a 24-hour city with clubs discharging 60,000 people between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. That is why we need a functioning transport system that runs for 24 hours. We entirely agree with that.
The noble Baroness referred to the evidence of Mr Wilfred Newton, who had been responsible for the mass transit system in Hong Kong, and who pointed out that in the time it took for the British system to go through all the legal proceedings to determine whether permission would be given, they built the whole mass transit system in Hong Kong. I do not know what were the precise times, but there is a widespread feeling that major infrastructure projects in this country take much too long from conception to commission. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions made clear in July in another place that he will consult on new procedures to speed up that process. The noble Baroness made an important point.
In an impressive speech, my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester made the argument for the PPP much more eloquently than it has often been made. He gave an impressive and measured account of the arguments in favour of it. It is worth saying that the arguments in favour have not been matched by any detailed argument for an alternative scheme. Like every speaker in the debate, he focused on the two real problems with the Tube: severe under-investment requiring certainty of investment in the long term and a change in management structure to deliver the major repairs, maintenance and infrastructure improvement that are required.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that he did not have the confidence that my noble friend had in the PPP and asked how it will get the management that it

617
needs. I agree with him that there are lots of first-class people in London Underground wanting to deliver a good operational service. In terms of maintenance and building the infrastructure, the management will come from the experts in the infra-cos, who have been delivering that service over a long period.
The noble Lord referred to the need for a sure source of money; that is provided by the PPP. He emphasised the need for a first-class service; we agree. He said that it is important that wheel and rail be brought together; I emphasise that they are. London Underground is responsible for them both. He said that the mayor should have money; the right way forward is the way that we set up through the PPP. He said that we promise a great deal and do nothing; we have spent a long time providing a structure that will ensure long-term investment for the Tube and proper management to deliver the infrastructure changes it requires.
We have been consistent in our policy and are driving it through. The best thing for those who use London Underground is that people accept that our policy is the way forward and all work together to try to make it work.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he answer my question about CrossRail? Will that and other capital projects by funded from the PPP, or will they receive a different form of funding?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are not immediately able to make detailed decisions about CrossRail.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should not dare to take up much of your Lordships' time after the debate that we have had. I should like first to thank those noble Lords who have taken part, and in particular, the Minister. He has charm; he has eloquence; he has wonderful skill in footwork. He can change the subject without our noticing, and it takes an awful effort on the part of very much older people such as myself always to follow him.
I did understand, and was deeply grateful for, the start of his speech, which was extremely flattering to me. I must make it clear to the Minister, if he does not know it already, that I have an almost unlimited appetite for such words. However, I should add that, much as I longed to believe that I had won some notable victory over the Treasury during my time as Minister of Transport, I am terribly sorry, but I could not remember one. The Minister of Transport who actually won any kind of victory over the Treasury is a figure that belongs deep in the roots of mythology.
I have only two more things to say. The first is by way of slight apology for suggesting, as I did, that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the Minister at the heart of the matter, and the Secretary of State, who is really nothing much more than a chorus girl, had treated a rather eminent man such as Mr Kiley
618
with shameful discourtesy. I omitted to say that the Prime Minister, by contrast, received and listened to Mr Kiley—something that was much appreciated.
The noble and learned Lord said that the whole of my plea was that we should give Mr Kiley a chance. That is true; it is a perfectly fair comment on my speech. But my reason for advocating that we listen to Mr Kiley and give him a chance is that he, unlike any of the other dramatis personae, has a record of quite outstanding success which has stood up to attempts to smear it. He brought with him at least a ray of hope, whereas the Treasury, which looks as though it will win this battle as it has won almost every other, is successful only in generating despair among the managers it refuses to support.
I have no desire to receive any Papers on this so I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Post-16 Education
6.11 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford rose to call attention to the arrangements for post-16 education; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put forward this Motion because I feel that many crucial decisions are made between the ages of 16 and the early 20s, decisions which often decide the pattern of our lives. It is therefore of immense importance that our education system is able to satisfy the needs and aspirations of our citizens during that important period.
We all agree that we wish to give young people the knowledge and skill to equip them to lead fulfilled and useful lives. I proposed this Motion because I am seriously worried that over the past few years decisions have been made which have meant that our crucial educational patterns are less effective in achieving those ideals than those of our near neighbours.
I begin with the A-level examination. For over 50 years the A-level examination has played an important role in our educational system. Many have felt for a long time, even when I was a young man leaving school, that it was too narrow a system and ought to be made broader. The model that was held before us over 20 or 30 years was the model of the baccalaureate. I must point out, as a matter of fact, that the French baccalaureate consists of a number of pre-arranged groupings of subjects. One takes a set menu and a set pattern rather than an a la carte menu from which one can take any selection of subjects. One examination is taken at the end of the course, and that is that.
Instead of embarking in our broadening process on the model that has been held out for decades, we chose to create the AS model; that is, four or so subjects are taken at a lower level in the first year of sixth form, and then two, three or more A-levels are taken at the end of the second year. That means constant examination. It is unique in Europe. Three examinations are taken in three years—GCSE, AS and then the A-level.
Enormous pressure is put on resources. Time which used to be given to valuable though un-examined extra studies, which was a great feature of the English sixth form during most of my teaching career, is eliminated. But above all, no set pattern of subjects is imposed, as it is in France. So there is no guarantee that the AS system will result in broadening. A modern linguist could take three languages at A-level and another two or so at AS level. The French system rests on imposed patterns.
Further—this is important and I shall be interested in the Minister's comments on this—we must remember that one of the advantages of the old A-level (the narrow specialisation) and one of the reasons it was kept going for so long was that where three subjects were studied in depth, it meant that the schools could service the university course. In effect, the traditional A-level meant that the first year of university work was done at school. The broader courses of continental Europe demand, and always have, university courses of four years or more. That is the norm throughout Europe. The reason we were able to avoid that was because, in effect, the first year's work was done in the sixth form. A survey was carried out in France by the University of Strasbourg which showed that the standard reached in traditional A-level chemistry here in the early 1980s was equivalent to that reached in the first year of a French university course. Therefore, one has to ask whether the Government are prepared to finance longer university courses which may result from the ideal of a broader sixth-form curriculum.
The AS pattern—I am stating the obvious—has not been a success. In essence, it is the wrong solution to a broader sixth-form curriculum; there are too many examinations and insufficient thought has been given to resources or the university three-year honours course.
Another area of worry is vocational education. In England we worried and agonised over vocational education at the end of the 19th century. The Victorians were more effective in vocational education than we have ever been since. The whisky tax of the early 1890s financed technical colleges. We have desperately tried in many ways over the past 130 years to improve our vocational education. Yet, again, the decisions we have made in this regard have not necessarily done so.
Throughout almost all of western Europe—particularly in Germany, which has in many ways been a model for vocational education and has been imitated by Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland—the pattern has been to have separate institutions for vocational and academic studies, in Germany from the age of 13, and in France and most of what can be described as Latin Europe from the age of 16. There are also distinct examinations taken at the end of the course; for example, in France the Baccalauréat professional is a separate vocational examination with standards set to provide professional prestige for vocational education.
That seems to have increased the prestige and acceptability of vocational qualifications in a way that does not happen in England. Those who have travelled in Denmark or Germany may have noticed that German and Danish plumbers put their qualifications on the side of their van. I have never seen any English plumber write "GNVQ" on the side of his van. It is difficult—I speak as a former schoolmaster—to devise a common system of standards for an examination that is broad enough to cover Latin, Greek and higher mathematics and specific vocational standards as well.
But we have not modelled our pattern on those of our successful continental neighbours. Our policy is, in effect, to run single examination vocational and academic courses. Further to that, and an inevitable result of it, is that we do not have specialist vocational colleges such as exist in western Europe and the United States of America—the former as a result of state policy and the other as a result of market forces. In any state in the United States one finds specialist vocational colleges paralleling academic universities.
Again we must ask ourselves—these are fundamental points of structure—whether we have got the answer right. More worrying is that we have boasted over the past few years about the improvement in results gained at GCSE and A-level. In 1980, 8.8 per cent of the papers examined gained an A grade at A-level. In 2000, the figure was 17.6 per cent, which is 8.8 per cent doubled, whereas the number of papers taken increased by only a quarter during that period. Again, as a former schoolmaster, no one would be more delighted than me if such a dramatic change had occurred. I would certainly have expected a large bonus. However, recent evidence has been produced revealing that the standard has been lowered.
Jeffrey Robinson, a former chief examiner of the Cambridge board, claimed that in 1989 those taking intermediate level mathematics had to secure 65 per cent to obtain a grade C; in 2000 they had to score 45 per cent. That is a considerable drop. Recently, at a wedding I sat next to a senior history examiner from the same board. He told me that the standard demanded for a grade A in A-level history had fallen from 75 per cent to 65 per cent. That explains why, in the classes I taught in my latter years, when I thought I was successful, I gained more grade As than I had gained in the whole of my career previously.
That is alarming. It means that universities—I refer to the academic side—may select for demanding courses students who do not have the talent to undertake them. They are fooling themselves. That is not good; neither for the university nor for the students. A-levels are a crucial element in enabling higher education institutions to be given the right evidence on what course will suit each student.
However, there is an even more alarming development. We must remember that our degree qualifications are like our currency: they can be judged by people abroad. If we reduce the standard of entry and consequently reduce the standard of degree—whether for reasons of positive discrimination or

621
whatever—we shall end up with a situation in which our university degrees are not recognised abroad. There have been problems with our physics degrees in Switzerland, and other problems are beginning to occur. In other words, this is not something we can fix on our own.
Above all, looming over the whole debate on post-16 education is the problem of funding. If we are to broaden educational courses, we need money for teachers, and so much more. It is deplorable that in Britain a university professor earns £46,000 per year. That is a low salary compared to the international league. It is not surprising that some of the television stars who appear in great history programmes are professors not in this country but in America. All these matters relate to funding.
In a letter to the chairman of the Learning and Skills Council relating to post-16 funding, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers stated:
"Dear Mr Harwood,…

1. No reference has been made to the schools' full entitlement to additional grants, eg Threshold, Upper Spine and Leadership pay money, SSG, Standards Fund and Formula Capital.

2. The Real Terms Guarantee may well be flawed: the financial impact of Curriculum 2000 has not been allowed for. The £2,600 figure penalises higher spending LEAS. The compensation offered for 2001/02 injection of extra LEA funding is vague in the extreme. The one-off adjustment is inadequate.

3. Why is any better provision via the Formula only available if it is affordable, and what does this mean?

4. Why are LSCs saying that they cannot handle these issues?".

When the secretary of a major teachers' union writes that sort of letter and then circulates all his members to ask whether the Government are providing extra funds, one wonders whether "education, education, education" is really the answer to the problem.
We all support the Government's ideal, so often expressed, that our young people should obtain qualifications and skills that equip them for the new and complex world of the 21st century. However, I feel that the Government often ignore the realities of the situation and pretend that all is going well when it is not. I have given examples of grade inflation. When doubts are raised by professional people who have examined for 20 or 30 years, it is not enough to say, "You are belittling the achievements of children"; one is not. However, as any teacher knows, we have to be realistic and we should not tell people that they have done well when they have not.
I hope that the Minister will be able to address the problems. Perhaps I may remind her of the AS experiment; the continuing difficulties of vocational education; the problem of running a common system, and grade inflation but, above all, of the need for proper funding, about which situation teachers currently have grave doubts. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for
622
introducing the debate. I cannot speak with the personal experience which he brings to this important subject. It is a long time now, more years than I care to remember, since I had responsibility for the lower sixth at the Tiffin School, although I am a member of the Corporation Board of Blackburn College, a distinction I share with the Foreign Secretary.
However, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, a commitment to the highest quality of education at all levels. I believe that that truly is the commitment of Her Majesty's Government also. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills spoke to the General Synod of the Church of England earlier today and shared something of her and the Government's vision and strategy. In my role as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, I can say how welcome and well received were her visit and speech. Indeed, the Synod gave her the rare accolade of a standing ovation for the affirmation and challenge she gave to the Church's educational work within the maintained sector.
I wish to comment briefly on three aspects of post-16 education: the breadth of the curriculum, vocational education and local learning partnerships. I turn first to the breadth of the curriculum. As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, indicated, AS levels have had a difficult birth, though I am not so negative about their conception. They were perhaps introduced too quickly and without adequate preparation. Clearly, there have been problems concerned with resources and, as the noble Lord said, examination timetabling and marking. Universities and employers seem not to know how to rate them. It takes time for new initiatives to be appreciated. I believe that the jury is still out; at least in the reported comments I read in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph and other local newspapers, that seems to be the case which headteachers are making at presentation of awards evenings in my part of the world. I hope that the Government will not be as discouraged as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, would wish them to be, even though one has to admit that AS levels have been criticised by my old friend, Dr Nick Tate, who was one of the architects of the new examinations. AS levels should not be dropped but made to work. Excessive specialisation at 16 is not necessary, with so many young people going on to further and higher education. Those pursuing plans for arts or language courses have much to learn from other disciplines. We should continue to see how best that can be ensured.
Before I leave the question of breadth in the curriculum, I must add a word about the place of religious education in the post-16 curriculum. There has been a welcome reassertion in recent years that RE is compulsory at all stages of schooling. I would want to be reassured that that requirement is being faithfully and imaginatively followed in all schools and sixth-form colleges, for anecdotal evidence suggests that that is not always the case. Surely it is most valuable for young people to be able to stand back from intense study and reflect more widely on questions of meaning and purpose. Moreover, spiritual development

623
contributes to effective learning for young people over 16, as for their younger brothers and sisters. There really is more to life than work.
That leads me to the Government's aims on vocational education. I welcome the intention to give vocational pathways equal status to academic pathways. But I look forward to seeing what that will mean in practice and hope that it is more than what was announced in September; an American-style graduation ceremony. I look for reassurance that freedom to vary the school curriculum to allow a more developed vocational emphasis will not be allowed to have the effect of further narrowing the curriculum and making it no more than a preparation for one kind of work. I wonder how, within the greater freedom, the compulsory place of religious education will be protected and, more widely, spiritual development assured.
Finally, I turn to local learning partnerships. I recall that during the passage of the Learning and Skills Act these Benches positively welcomed the Government's creation of the learning and skills councils at both national and local level. In particular, we welcomed the bringing together of further education and work-based education, and the extension of government support via local LSCs to voluntary bodies. Of course the term "voluntary bodies" includes the Churches, often very actively committed to learning opportunities of all kinds and at all levels, not least for those previously excluded from learning or who had excluded themselves from learning opportunities during compulsory schooling.
The Church of England, alongside other Churches, has a significant commitment to statutory education and to voluntary education. So the partnership with local government is very important to the Church and we work hard to achieve it. In some places, the Churches have been brought into successful partnership with the local learning and skills councils, but I am sorry to say that that is far from the case across the nation.
I want to ask that central government and the national Learning and Skills Council ensure that those partnerships flourish and develop effectively at local level. In the meantime, where that partnership has not been developed effectively, we have doubts about the Government's intention to give the local learning and skills councils a more significant role in making proposals for the provision of post-16 education. I look forward to the Minister's reassurance on the Government's commitment to the partnership between the LSCs and the voluntary bodies, including the Churches.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the House and especially to the Minister because a long-standing commitment means that I shall have to leave the debate early. Today I speak as the chairman of Landau Forte College, which is a city technology college and a comprehensive school in Derby. I have been its chairman for nine years.
624
Children, and that includes those who are 16-plus, are candles to be lit, not bottles to be filled. The future of post-16 education in this country worries me. I hope that I am wrong, but the signs do not seem good. I shall mention only two of my worries. The first concerns AS-levels and the way in which they have been introduced without sufficient consultation.
AS-levels were pitchforked into the curriculum for school students in the first year of their A-levels—a year which in the past gave a brief breathing space. It was one year without the pressure of exams. Noble Lords will remember that up to GCSE-level school children are tested, first, at the age of seven, then at 11, then at 14 and then at 16. The following year, the first year of the A-level course and the vocational Advanced Vocational Certificate of Education (previously GNVQ) was always a great relief. In the past it gave students the chance to develop a new interest—for instance, working for the Duke of Edinburgh Award—or to concentrate on an old one—perhaps a musical instrument, a team game, acting or organising the lighting for a play. It even provided a little time to ponder and reflect. The great Sydney Smith—writing, I must emphasise, in Sketches in Moral Philosophy—stated:
"There is one piece of advice, in a life of study, which I think no one will object to: that is, every now and then, to be completely idle, to do nothing at all".
The manner in which the AS-level was introduced showed no thought for the practicalities—certainly not enough. There is stress not only for the students, but also for the teaching staff. Timetabling becomes a nightmare, juggling with many more combinations of subjects not only throughout the year but also at examination time. The different boards for A-level and AVCE do not co-ordinate their dates, therefore a student may find herself or himself with three or four different exams crammed into a couple of days without a break. The staff have to spend hours supervising and the school budget for external examinations is unbelievably high. At Landau Forte, overall the annual budget for external exams rose by 20 per cent in the year in which AS-level exams were introduced. We are talking of thousands and thousands of pounds.
My second worry concerns the Learning and Skills Council, which has been in place since April this year. It is a huge organisation operating through 47 local learning and skills councils, explicitly focusing on skills and employer needs at national, regional and local levels. That body will have responsibility for planning, funding, monitoring and improving the quality of post-16 up to higher education level. It will concentrate on work-based training for young people and adult and community education. There are many good things and the opportunity sounds good for those who have dropped out of school, or who realised that they wasted their time at school, or who rightly want to improve their qualifications. But surely it is not the right body to take the academic, the liberal arts and the teaching of history, for example.

625
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to an article written by Nicholas Foulkes which appeared in last Saturday's Financial Times. He stated:
"Knowledge is the absolute key to history. Without it you cannot hope to understand the past—or the present".
Where does that fit into skills-based learning?
The really sinister aspect of the new Learning and Skills Council is that from the academic year 2002–03 onwards the council will also take responsibility for the whole of school sixth form funding. Even now Ofsted inspectors are required to inspect school sixth forms in two ways: first, as a part of the school; and, secondly, as a post-16 unit. Do the Government intend to do away with school sixth forms altogether? What measure of control will they apply?
I am not alone in my concern. Principals of specialist schools are anxious and apprehensive about the future funding of their sixth forms. The sixth form is an integral part of many fine schools. The specialist teachers of A-level subjects give and receive stimulus from sixth form teaching. At Landau Forte we have a vertical tutor group system. It is a delight to see the seniors giving help and encouragement to the juniors. This is especially true for junior boys who can see for themselves that the older boys are enjoying reading and learning a language and that it is not just a "sissy" thing to do.
Recently one inspector came to Landau Forte to find out why our boys' results were so good. "What is the secret?", he asked the principal, who replied, "We teach them".
I conclude with a simple plea to the Government. Please take care with new ideas which could cause unnecessary upheaval. There is so much that is good in so many of our schools. Over the years, I have visited a number of them in my capacity as a member of two advisory panels to grant-giving foundations. Please treat the teachers, especially head teachers, as professionals and work with them. As I believe President Kennedy said, if it is not necessary to change then it is necessary not to change.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for initiating the debate. I could not help noting that all the previous speakers included references to the AS-level. I confess that I have some responsibility for the AS-level. However, it may be worth looking back at what this villain wrote to the Conservative Government, I think it was in 1996. If I remember rightly, they were warned that there would be penalties if the system were unduly rushed—and I think that it was. An approach was suggested in the report. It focused on how the AS could be used with the A-level to give real breadth over three domains of knowledge.
However, I have no intention to revisit my past adventures. I wish today to enter an entirely new area. If anyone were to interrupt my speech, it would be apparent that I could easily be floored on this subject.
626
In this House I have been accustomed to hearing well-informed debates on education, schools, colleges, universities and, on occasion, lifelong learning facilitated by, for example, the UfI. But I want to speak about an issue which I do not recall being discussed but which I view as a necessary complement to what goes on in schools. It is necessary to complement the Government's wish to encourage staying on after 16 so that we catch up with other nations, improve standards in all our institutions, and achieve a 50 per cent participation rate in higher education by 2010. The necessary complement is apprenticeship.
A report was published in September by a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Cassels. It tells us that we have something which is valuable but we are not using it well enough and we have very real problems. My only purpose in speaking today is to commend the report to the House and the Government. Noble Lords will know as well as I do that with the big run-down of our major industries in the 1970s and 1980s the old apprenticeships fell with them. Attempts were made by the Government through the youth training scheme and, from 1995, through the modern apprenticeship to give a new impetus to apprenticeships. The Cassels committee tells us that while the elements of a good apprenticeship scheme exist, the goods have not been delivered and there are real faults.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to arrangements in several mainland European countries. In France and Germany, they are well developed. Apprenticeships at the NVQ2 level are 30 per cent higher than in this country. At NVQ or above, in Germany the number is two-thirds greater than in this country.
We have this strong commitment, which I support, to increasing the number of graduates. But—I say this from sensitive experience of trying to get someone to fit a floor, or to do some plastering or plumbing in my house—in our society the number of good craftsmen may be a touch shorter than that of graduates. In short, our society is distinctive not only in its approach to education but also in the way that we have not developed, as so many other countries have, a well-developed cadre of craftsmen and technicians. It is a fundamental weakness in the economy. The lack of a good scheme is a fundamental weakness in our arrangements for providing opportunities for all our young people to engage in developing themselves through training and education. We must have another highway for those youngsters who may not have academic talents or a taste for continuing in full-time education. Unless we have, we are wasting their talents.
What are people saying about our present modern apprenticeships? The Cassels committee reports that they are poorly known about or understood; they are inconsistent in delivery; poorly managed; in the minds of employers they involve too much bureaucracy. I have also seen it argued that they may lack an adequate entitlement to education during the apprenticeship period.

627
Research undertaken for the committee demonstrates that while many people know in general terms that there is this thing called a modern apprenticeship, when it comes down to detailed knowledge, that is not the picture. Eighty per cent of teachers have said that it is a lack of knowledge and adequate information that is likely to have been a barrier to the take up of apprenticeships by young people. Market research through focus groups of pupils has shown that they are generally regarded as a poor alternative to staying on in full-time education even though some groups of students thought that they might be unable to cope with A-levels. Young people pursuing modern apprenticeships wanted them to be more widely known and respected. We have a big problem.
The committee made a battery of proposals but this is not the occasion to go into a long recital of them. I wish to mention a few of the key ones in order to promote knowledge of them. To raise the standard and the esteem in which they are held, the committee recommends the establishment of a national framework of apprenticeships which provide clear statements of their basic content and duration at two levels, foundation and advanced, with a national system for the award of diplomas by the national training organisations. There should be opportunities to progress from the advanced level into higher education and to an associate degree or perhaps a full degree. In other words, the committee recommends that there should be a national framework—a highway—for those who do not continue in full-time education but want to earn and learn.
There should be proper apprenticeship agreements between the employer and the apprentice in all cases, including an individual training plan providing for both on-the-job training with the employer and off-the-job learning subject to external circumstances. I could go on because I have quite a list, but I shall not.
Noble Lords should read the report because it contains good material. It goes so far as to ask whether we should be thinking about some objectives. Compared with the high figures for mainland Europe, as regards people between the ages of 25 and 28, 22 per cent have apprenticeship training. The Cassels committee is suggesting that we should aim for 28 per cent by 2004 and 35 per cent by 2010. Those are ambitious targets.
As I well know, as someone who has written the odd report or two, it is one thing to do that and another for anything to happen. The people to whom the Cassels committee is looking to make things happen are the Government, of course, and the learning and skills councils which they see as funding the out of work training, which is the formal learning. But perhaps only the Government can rouse the enthusiasm of the CBI, the chambers of commerce and the trades unions because it is from there that the great pull has to come. I am hoping that the Government will have as much passion for this form of learning as they have for the formal learning which takes place in our schools, colleges and universities. I know that they welcome
628
this report. I hope that they will wish to say more in due course and to state specifically what they intend to do.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend Lord Pilkington for securing this very important debate. Before making my contribution I ought to declare an interest as chairman of the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, which is the national training organisation for engineering manufacture.
Since being elected in 1997 this Government have sought to reform many aspects of the post-16 education structure and I welcome much of the work that has been done during that time in this area. The most significant has been the creation of the learning and skills councils replacing the TECs and the FEFC. The Careers Service has been replaced by what is called the Connexions Service and we have seen the introduction and then the suspension of individual learning accounts, the introduction and review of AS-levels and most recently an announcement that NTOs such as the EMTA are to be abolished and replaced by sector skills councils. I should perhaps refrain from commenting any more on the Government's plans for appointing sector skills councils since my own organisation is likely to be directly involved in that process.
It is the relatively new learning and skills councils on which I should like to concentrate my remarks. I hope that your Lordships will understand if my comments are geared towards the engineering sector. I do that for two reasons. First, it is an issue about which I feel very strongly and, secondly, I suggest that some of the reasons for the skills shortages that the sector faces and which the Government are so keen to address and rightly so.
At the outset I want to emphasise the importance of vocational education and the need for the learning and skills councils to ensure parity between the academic and college-based route on the one hand and the vocational route on the other. In the engineering sector the number of employees within engineering holding vocational qualifications is increasing. The number of those who hold vocational qualifications at higher or intermediate levels, degree level or above, has risen by 10 per cent in recent years. The number is now around 53 per cent.
That change mainly reflects the supply side of the labour market. There has been a rising level of educational attainment in the population. In particular there is an increasing number staying on in post compulsory education. But it also reflects the shift in the sector to higher level occupations. Despite the increase in the numbers taking the vocational route, the number of young people taking the apprenticeship route to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred, in the engineering manufacture sector is not as high as we would wish and the completion rates are also considerably lower than we would wish.

629
There are many reasons for the low take-up, but the main one is likely to be higher staying on rates at 16 combined with the poor image of engineering and work-based learning.
The problem we face is straightforward. The higher calibre potential apprentices opt to take further qualifications and are no doubt rightly encouraged to do so by their schools and colleges. But that is not helped by the relatively poor and, from my own perspective, occasionally somewhat biased careers advice and guidance on engineering and work-based training which is given to young people.
Young people following vocational studies in schools must be encouraged to consider the work-based route to qualifications as a worthwhile option. An apprenticeship in industry, with relevant part-time vocational educational support, is for many people a wholly desirable and preferable alternative to continuing in full-time education.
I should like to mention the reference in today's Financial Times to a recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the value of vocational studies. Far from arguing that academic qualifications, particularly school-based qualifications, are much more valuable than vocational ones, the report suggests that those who achieve higher marks from the classroom experience actually perform better when taking vocational qualifications.
However, the cost of vocational training, especially in the engineering sector, is very much higher than in other sectors. For example, the average cost for someone going through a modern apprenticeship is between £28,000 and £40,000 compared with business administration where the cost is only about £8,000. These high levels of costs associated with these qualifications become more of a problem with the disproportionate funding arrangements of the various TECs throughout the country. The level of funding made available was a matter for the local TEC provider. Now the learning and skills councils have a more national approach.
It is my hope that the creation of the learning and skills councils will result in a more equitable funding regime. A national framework with no flexibility at local level and minimal autonomy is probably a move in the right direction.
But, as with all new beasts, the transitional period from one regime to a new one is proving costly for many training organisations, not least the group training associations, and some are facing the prospect of closure. The problem arises from the contracts negotiated with the TECs and the funding of these by the learning and skills councils.
Looking to the future, the engineering manufacture sector requires significantly more funding for 19 to 24 year-olds. Perhaps I may refer to some of the factors. As an NTO, EMTA is investing time, money and resources in promoting the vocational GCSE in engineering to ensure that sufficient young people are
630
inspired to think about a career in engineering. The significance of our efforts lies in the ability to fund sufficient places in the 19 to 24 age group.
Secondly, the recent report by Sir John Cassels, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—I pay tribute to Sir John, not only in regard to his report but in regard to his previous work as chairman of UK Skills, of which I have the honour to be a director—identified engineering as a leading sector in modern apprenticeships and cited it as a high-quality model, but one which is expensive to deliver.
Thirdly, Sir John Cassels set a figure of 35 per cent as the completion rate for modern apprenticeships. I suggest that that will be a difficult target to achieve given the attraction of the higher education and further education routes to many young people. The Government's target of a 50 per cent participation rate for 18 to 30 year-olds is an added problem. As Sir John also identified, there is a significant lack of funding for 19 to 24 year-olds looking to complete vocational qualifications, having failed in terms of the higher education or further education routes.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred at some length to the modern apprenticeship. I very much share his enthusiasm for that qualification. The modern apprenticeship is a raft of NVQs, brought together in a flexible way to meet the needs of the individual applicant, but above all to meet the needs of industry. In the first two or three years after the introduction of the modern apprenticeship, from 1995, the take-up rate increased acceptably. But in the past year or so it has levelled off to a considerable extent. I hope that, before long, once the economy lifts off again, the increase in the take-up rate of the modern apprenticeship will be resumed.
We may need to give the learning and skills councils the benefit of the doubt in the next few years as they get to grips with the tasks that face them. We shall need watch carefully to see how the LSCs respond to these issues.
I want to raise one final point; namely, the announcement by the Secretary of State that, by 2002, all training needs will be so-called framework training. This means that young people will no longer be able to undertake NVQs on their own. This detracts from the kind of flexibility that we are looking for in this area. I hope that the matter will be reviewed.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for introducing this important subject.
Good teaching is not enough. I shall attempt to persuade your Lordships on three matters: first, that family support is of fundamental importance to successful education outcomes; secondly, flowing from that, that there is a strong case for more support for parents to encourage and sustain them in that task; finally, I want to address briefly the problems of those who do not have family support.

631
To establish my first point, perhaps I may quote extensively from recent research. For example, a group of workers at Cambridge analysed data from the British Household Panel Survey based on the lives of 1,000 young people. Their findings include the following:
"Contrary to the assumption that Britain is becoming less family centred and more individualistic, family matters are by far and away regarded by our young adolescents as the most important aspect of their lives. Family communication and support matter enormously for whether young people are making a success of their lives".
The study found that not only family background but also family interaction matters in tilting the odds in relation to the risky behaviour of young people and their success in education.
A study at the City University found that:
"the influence of socio-economic adversity is largely mediated through the material resources available to the family. Teenagers growing up in households where they had no room of their own, or possibly even a desk or table to do their homework, were less likely to do well in school. Over-crowded accommodation, frequent house moves, and shared use of facilities represent the sort of disadvantage that increases the risk of poor academic achievement, behavioural problems, poor health and ultimately adjustment problems in adulthood".
A study by the School of Social Sciences at the University of Teesside found the following:
"Despite the current rhetoric about a parenting deficit, most parents, whatever their circumstances, want to do their best for their children. With regard to education, numerous state initiatives recognise and attempt to harness this familial value. More significantly, the individualisation and commodification of learning is rendering family support increasingly critical. In consequence, differences in family supports raise issues of social policy, not just of social inequality but also in equality of opportunity".
Finally, a Leeds university study concluded, in relation to the type of support that young people receive:
"Financial support from parents is irregular, discretionary and negotiated.
"Only about 10% of parents made regular monthly payments to their children aged 16–25".
It goes on to state:
"Families play a pivotal role in many unemployed young people's lives. Sudden drops in income due to unemployment enforced reliance on parental assistance. Parents lend money and provide free board and lodging. They and the wider family endeavour to keep young people involved in social and family networks, often providing them with the financial means to do this. However, reliance on parents was seen as a forced choice. Many unemployed young people were concerned about being dependent because their parents were themselves on low incomes. Although most parents appeared willing to give financial and material help to their young adult offspring, they were not always able to do so".
All those statistics and studies, and many others, point to the conclusion that parents and the state must work together if we want to achieve, in the national interest, good educational outcomes for 16 to 25 year-olds. It goes without saying that, without such education, young people will have little hope in life and society will be the poorer.
Families are the guardians of the social capital. As I have shown, they can make an enormous difference to the educational attainment of children. So surely the
632
state ought to do more to support parents with post-16 children in education or training. Will the Minister draw the attention of her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the advantages of this excellent investment?
I now turn briefly my third and final point. What about those 16 to 25 year-olds who do not have a functional, supportive family? What are their chances of getting further education and training? Unless they get help, I fear that their chances are slim indeed.
Some succeed against all the odds simply through their personality and determination, but many more could succeed if they had more help. What kind of help do they need? They need, in essence, someone to replace the support they would have had from their family. It has to be said that it is a waste of time offering the best education and the best teaching in the world unless young people have that support. They need some way to acquire the means they need to live on and the money they need to live on. They need somewhere to belong. Housing is all very well but what they need is a surrogate home. They need motivation, hope, self-confidence and courage to believe that they can win through.
My wife is chairman of a charity, one of the departments of which is called "Moving Forward". It operates in Kent from Margate through to Dartford. In each centre there is a key worker who goes out on the streets, is known in the area and has a small room or office somewhere near the centre. That person seeks out young people who are lost, excluded and disadvantaged and are not "connecting". In most of the places where the charity operates it also has a drop-in centre. The key worker invites the young person back for a cup of coffee and asks him or her whether they want somewhere to live. The young person replies, "That would be marvellous". The key worker says, "All right, you can have somewhere to live. We shall help you but you must also help us". They negotiate a contract by which the young person agrees to undertake training and to try to be a responsible tenant of the accommodation which is provided. The key worker works with that young person. Sometimes in the first few weeks he or she may have to visit that young person every day. But gradually the young person learns to be a householder and a responsible tenant. They probably fall down on their training and need to be picked up again in a way that parents would do if they had parents. They have the drop-in centre as a centre of belonging. The process works.
That may not be the only formula. An enormous amount of resources, effort and dedication would be needed to extend that service across the country, but it might be a good investment. The kind of education or training which is offered also matters. It must seem relevant to the young person and attainable. It must also be delivered by people the young person respects. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to apprenticeships. I believe that is one route by which young people can work alongside adults they respect. Let us face it, the kind of young people I am talking about do not necessarily respect academics.

633
Backed by educational support of that kind and given hope, many young men and women will try hard to make up lost ground. Frankly, I cannot see how the right kind of help can be given to all those young people who need it without substantial support from the taxpayer. Can the Government give any hope that this important gateway to education will be open to young people, especially those who do not have family support?
7.14 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pilkington for giving us the opportunity of this debate. I hope indeed that we are in for a few years of debate. We have had some fairly radical changes in post-16 education and I think a period now of gradual change but, above all, a great deal of discussion and analysis would be a good precedent to set for the way we move on education in this country.
My noble friend Lord Pilkington is quite right to say that we really ought to take a close look at what is happening overseas, or even overland. The Scots are tackling this same problem. However, we do not seem to be paying much attention to what they are doing. There are some interesting things going on in Europe, as opposed to just the systems that exist there. The ways the Europeans are looking at changing their systems are also extremely interesting. I hope that we shall have the benefit of other occasions when people who know about them—I do not claim to know about them in sufficient detail—will be able to tell us what the current thinking is in the likes of France, Germany and Italy. That might inform the way we look to make the next major change in this area which may be five or 10 years ahead of us.
In that context I am terribly disappointed that there are no contributions in this debate from Back-Bench Labour or Back-Bench Liberals. I have benefited a great deal in the past from listening to my colleagues on those Benches. It is sad that they are not here today. I hope that that will not be the case on future education debates. We are all the poorer for it and it does not show those parties off in a good light.
I shall tackle a couple of fairly minor points first. This debate is about post-16 education. I should like to get away from the "16" in that. The more I see schools, the way results come through and the pressures put on schools, the more I think it is better to think in terms of a year group. There are many reasons why a kid might in the course of 12 years of education slip a year behind. It may just be some hiatus in their life or they may have some degree of special educational need which requires some intensive attention at some point in their career. But one of the most enduring educational statistics is that those who come to school younger—those who are the young starters rather than those who start school almost a year older—just because of their birthdays do about half a grade worse at A-level.
That has been the case in every single year's statistics I have looked at and I am sure that it is the case now. We must look at a more flexible system
634
where we do not just disadvantage kids because they are born in August. We should allow them, if it is right, to drop back a year. The main disincentive to that at the moment and to schools being allowed to look at the kid rather than look at the system is the fact that we report the GCSE results as age 16 rather than as a year group. We need to look at that point. It is starting to have a larger and larger effect on the way schools treat kids as there are fewer and fewer other things to do to improve one's league table position which is something that schools and parents still care about.
I should like to hear the Minister comment on the way the LSC is developing its thinking on school sixth forms. I am starting to hear some things that concern me. I do not know the truth of the matter so perhaps the Minister will be able to inform me. I hear that there is a proposal to reserve 15 per cent of A-level funding and pay it only if the child passes the examination. That would be a very bad precedent to set and I hope that that is wrong. I am also told that the LSC is considering taking powers or using powers to forbid a school to offer a subject at A-level if only one or two kids wish to study it. The LSC considers that that is uneconomic and that schools should not do it. I hope that schools will be allowed to take those decisions. I am also told that there are worries that the LSC will compel schools to combine sixth forms with those of neighbouring schools and will not allow that to be a free decision on the part of schools. I hope that I am wrong and I should very much like to be given some comfort from the Minister on that matter.
I turn to two subjects which I hope we shall allow ourselves to think about over the years. The first subject involves breadth. The changes that have been made and the principles that lie behind AS-levels were right. My daughter, who is now 17, benefited enormously from being able to continue two extra subjects at AS-level. There was a chaotic start, and it was a hard year for her but a good principle is involved and it is a good route to have gone down. I regret the loss of what would otherwise have been done during her first-year sixth—all the external broadening has been much compressed. We should not lose that; part of what makes people interesting human beings is that they are not just educated but grow in understanding and enjoyment of the world outside education.
We should look closely at the IB—the international baccalaureate—not least because Nick Tate appears to be taking it up. Having devised AS-levels, he is now said to be putting the IB into Winchester. It is a respected examination—it provides more breadth, albeit perhaps only for the more academic portion of a school. We should not reject it or turn our backs on it just because we did not invent it here. We should also examine the way in which SATs have evolved in the United States. American parents who work in London for a period and who then go backwards and forwards between the United States and this country say to me that the main difference between an 18 year-old English kid and an 18 year-old American is that the English kid knows more but that the American kid understands more. We should not forget that although

635
it is important to get the answer it is also important to understand the answer. Other systems secure that better than ours does.
I turn to the last but perhaps most important area; namely, vocational education. I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who is going down entirely the right route. It is important that vocational education should enjoy parity of esteem with academic education. The roots of that approach have to begin in secondary school. Kids have to see vocational education as an equally valuable option. As the noble Lord said, there should not be a one-way division; one has to be able to find one's way back to the academic approach if that is right.
We have to do what has been done so successfully in Singapore, where many of those who take the vocational route will end up founding and running big companies. People who take the vocational route should have access to the basic academic skills and some of the academic breadth that make it possible for them to hold their own in the company of those who took the academic route. The fact that kids are doing carpentry, for example, is no reason why they should be cut off from culture, history or whatever else interests them about the world.
We must recognise that if we do not seriously give children a choice between the academic and vocational routes, many of the kids who end up in university will end up doing the wrong courses for the wrong reasons; they will accumulate very large debts obtaining a skill that is of no use to them. They would have been much better served if they had gone down a different route.
7.23 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we are again indebted to my noble friend Lord Pilkington for pointing out the importance of education. This is a very timely debate, in which I must declare two interests: first, I am the president of the Institute for Supervision and Management; and secondly—and more crucially—I am the father of an 18 year-old son, who has just endured AS-levels and who is now studying for his A-levels.
I want to make the shortest of interventions—I shall make three very brief points. I start with the quite sad AS-levels. I do so with the bitter experience of having seen my son and his friends battle with them. The introduction of the AS-level has placed an unrecognisable burden on pupils in year 12. That should be a year of learning that should be for trained thought rather than for facing the quite unrealistic demands of AS-level exams. That was particularly true in the case of people such as my son, who suffers from dyslexia.
My second point relates to the rubric on examination papers. I was horrified to see a mock examination paper that was prepared by one of the awarding bodies for art A-level. So unclear were the instructions that they should have been submitted to the Plain English Campaign for scrutiny. For a boy suffering from dyslexia, understanding the instructions has affected in
636
a major way his chances of achieving the innovative section of the practical in that exam. That consideration must also apply to others.
My third point relates to vocational education and training. It is not enough for us to say that there should be parity of esteem between the academic and vocational routes. The vocational route should not be considered a second-class option. If we are serious about addressing the skills shortage, particularly in disciplines such as engineering and IT, we need to make those subjects attractive to a much wider range of people.
I listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who is not currently in his place. I have known of his organisation, the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, for several years and I appreciate his reluctance to address the issue of sector skills councils. However, having read the recent policy guidance, I trust that in replacing NTOs—I accept the Government's wish not to simply re-brand NTOs—the Government will not fall into the trap of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I also hope that organisations such as the Engineering and Marine Training Authority will be licensed as one of the sector skills councils.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I add my thanks to those that noble Lords have already extended to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for initiating this debate. I take it that "post-16 education" includes higher education. I shall concentrate on that, although other noble Lords have not attended this debate with the intention of discussing that sector.
I start by quoting from a speech that was made by Estelle Morris, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, on 22nd October. She said:
"Over the last ten to twenty years, the higher education system has seen a huge shift from being an elite to a mass system, but without anyone necessarily thinking strategically about what we want universities to be achieving. As we expand further we need to give this more thought".
What an astonishing admission; but one which, I fear, is all too true. We saw another example of it in the latest U-turn over funding. It was tuition fees yesterday and graduate tax today; what tomorrow? How wonderful the response of the Secretary of State to this anarchic process of policy-making has been. I repeat that she said:
"As we expand further we need to give this more thought".
I am the last person to object to more thinking, but would it not have been better to have done the thinking before the expansion? Even now, would it not he better to say, "Well, let us halt the expansion while we do some more thinking; then we will decide how much further we want to carry the expansion"? But no; the Government were already committed to the target of getting 50 per cent of the population who are under 30 into higher education by 2010. This year's expansion of 5.5 per cent has been welcomed by the Secretary of State. She said,
"we are well on our way".
Well on our way to what?

637
I fear that the Government have only one purpose: to increase access to higher education by young people from unskilled and manual working class backgrounds. The Secretary of State has said that,
"none of us can defend the position"
whereby only 14 per cent of such young people go into higher education compared with 74 per cent from professional grounds. She adds that,
"that gap has not narrowed in recent times".
I leave aside the fact that the figures do not add up; 74 per cent and 14 per cent make 98 per cent. I do not know what has happened to the remaining 2 per cent.
I agree that there is a waste of talent at the lower end, but that is subject to two qualifications. First, we must remember that the proportion of the manual working class in the population as a whole has been constantly shrinking so that there is much less waste in quantitative terms than 20 or 30 years ago. Access has been continually widening. Secondly, it is far from clear that universities are the best places for all young people to acquire the skills needed in a modern economy. That point has been made by the noble Lords, Lord Pilkington and Lord Dearing, and other contributors. Germany has a lower participation ratio in higher education but a more skilled labour force than the UK.
We have not started to think about what we are doing to the distinctive function of universities by making them the top tier of the school system rather than places which offer specifically academic education for those with the aptitude to benefit from it. Of course the Secretary of State makes the right noises. The universities are to have a
"rich complexity of differing missions"
and
"expansion must be achieved without any compromise on excellence and quality".
I fear that they are noises. A diversity of missions cannot be achieved without unequal funding. As the late Lord Beloff used to say, it costs more to produce a Rolls-Royce than a Mini.
The pass on excellence and quality has already been sold. Pace Kingsley Amis, more need not have meant worse, but it has meant worse because ever since the 1980s governments have underfunded university expansion and failed to protect the international status of our best universities. I give just two figures which are well known to anyone who has taken part in these debates. First, the level of public funding per student fell by 50 per cent between 1980 and 1999, resulting in a rise in the student:staff ratio from 9.1 per cent to 17.1 per cent. Secondly, since 1980 the average pay of academic staff has increased by only 70 per cent of average non-manual pay in the economy and 80 per cent of public sector pay. This makes it more difficult to recruit and retain academic staff in competition with other academic jobs not only in this country but abroad, particularly in the United States. The attempt to keep up quality in face of declining relative pay and conditions has led to increasingly intrusive regulation of both research and teaching.
638
Despite all the fine words of the Secretary of State, the Government have not begun to address the problem of the underfunding of higher education. All government funding initiatives going back to the 1990s have been designed to save the Government money without increasing the total amount of money flowing into the university system. For example, a couple of years ago the Government graciously allowed universities to charge students £1,000 tuition fees, and promptly clawed back most of it by economising on the block grant. Now the talk is of replacing tuition fees and reintroducing maintenance grants by means of a graduate tax. What do we think about that?
Mr Martin Wolf writing in the Financial Times on 29th October made four devastating criticisms of the graduate tax proposal, which I hope the Government will take into account in their review. First, it would bring no new money into the universities; secondly, it would reinforce the crippling dependence of the universities on the whims of government; thirdly, unlike market-led user charges it would create no cross-related incentives for either students or universities; and, fourthly, university graduates already pay for the benefits of their education through taxes. Therefore, one is simply introducing an extra tax.
The purpose of the rethink on tuition fees appears to be confined to only one matter: the removal of the deterrent effect on poor students of embarking on higher education. But, as Mr Wolf points out, this could best be done by targeted schemes of maintenance grants and tuition scholarships.
There are only two ways to get more money into the university system: either the taxpayer must pay a lot more to restore "excellence and quality" and then maintain them as expansion continues, or universities themselves must be allowed to charge market prices for their courses without being under constant threat of having their existing level of grants reduced pro rata. My instinct is to support the second of these two alternatives because I do not believe that predominant reliance on public funding, even on a more generous scale, will protect the best universities from an inexorable process of dumming down. In others words, I do not believe that public funding can be differentiated enough—the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was very keen on that differentiation—to protect the best.
All the forces of egalitarianism will push towards uniform provision, just as they do in the school system. It will be called levelling up, but I fear that it will be levelling down. There is a trade-off between equality and the distinctive things that universities stand for: excellence, freedom and truth. The existence of that trade-off is best recognised by a system of mixed public/private funding. I hope that we move in that direction. I fear that unless the Secretary of State grasps this nettle she will bring no more comfort to higher education than her predecessors have done.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I too compliment my noble friend on securing this debate. As we are all aware, he has devoted his life to the cause

639
of education. I hope that the Government will heed his words and those of other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for introducing the subject of university education. I must declare a very honourable interest as president of the University of Wales College of Medicine. That is an excellent college which enjoys a high reputation for medical research and teaching. It is a national institution in Wales. Although the college is centred on the University of Wales Hospital at Cardiff, it is connected with the rest of the university sector through training placements with hospitals and GPs throughout the Principality.
My remarks will be largely about the difficulties being encountered in providing higher education in that all-important area of health and medicine. The University of Wales, including our college, is now the responsibility of the National Assembly which is conducting its own review of higher education, but the problems that I shall describe are not confined to Wales and are prevalent in other medical schools in England. We should not forget that health and medical students numerically represent some 12½ per cent of the higher education sector in the United Kingdom.
It is hardly necessary for me to stress the importance to the NHS of all kinds of medical education. The NHS is dependent on our medical schools for the majority of its front line health care professionals. It goes without saying that we cannot hope to have a first-class health service without a steady inflow of first-class graduates from our medical schools.
The Government recognise the basic needs of the NHS in human resource terms. They have increased substantially the number of student places available in recent years. But, quite frankly, that is not enough. There are currently grave concerns about whether the places available can be filled. The number of applicants for medicine and dentistry has fallen sharply by some 16 per cent in the five years between 1995 and 2000, and there have been even greater falls in some subsidiary areas. I understand that several medical schools had to go through clearing at UCAS to fill places for this academic year. Other professions—physiotherapy, radiography and occupational therapy—are also threatened by a dearth of applicants for entry to them. We are losing rather than gaining ground. The question is: why? Universities UK sums up the matter by stating:
"It, therefore, seems medicine might have become a less attractive career to prospective students. This might be because it is perceived to be only for high academic achievers or because the longer term career prospects and working conditions are not attractive to young people".
Let me consider that in the context of the microcosm of my own college. That college has been asked to take another 100 students on top of the 350 that we already have. Of course we shall respond positively to that. But our capacity, along with that of the other higher education institutions in Wales with which we collaborate closely, has reached saturation point. We badly need more investment in student accommodation and ancillary facilities of the quality that will attract students in this day and age.
640
Medical courses are of longer duration than other academic courses and require a strong sense of vocation as well as dedication to complete. That may be a factor which accounts for the fall in the number of applicants for places at medical schools along with lack of financial support, the prospect of debt and the prospect of more lucrative rewards offered by other careers.
I am told that the National Assembly for Wales may try to follow the Scottish proposal which provides that tuition fees are paid at the end of higher education courses rather than as they proceed. Again I refer to the views of Universities UK. It quite rightly states:
"There's also a lot of confusion about tuition fees. Too many people from lower socio-economic groups believe they have to pay these fees when most will be completely exempt from them. [It is a fact that] 50 per cent of all students will pay nothing at all towards the costs of their higher education".
Its statement goes on:
"Universities UK is opposed to scrapping tuition fees. We believe that those who can afford to make an upfront contribution to the costs of their higher education should do so. Universities rely on this substantial income stream and any radical change in this system would jeopardise their financial stability, unless the government was prepared to fill this gap in income completely".
It is not just the fall in student applications that is causing concern. There is also a shortage of high-quality teaching and research staff. There were no fewer than 79 vacant professorial chairs in medical schools according to a recent survey by the Council of Heads of Medical Schools.
I regard that as a dismal situation under a Government that promised to give a high priority to education and to increase education spending as a proportion of national income. Their failure to fulfil their promises and the deteriorating position we are faced with will have devastating consequences. I have concentrated on the health field, but of course there are other areas of our national life which will be similarly adversely affected by a lack of investment in higher education.
I strongly advise the Government, in their own interests and those of the NHS, to consider the situation very carefully if they want to ensure for the future that we have an adequate supply of frontline staff in the NHS. A holistic approach is certainly required which takes account not only of the maintenance of student numbers but the overall quality of the institutions where we educate them.
Finally, I agree with a substantial amount of the statement by Universities UK that:
"It is crucial that [in] any shake-up in student support funding is not achieved at the expense of universities. Universities UK will be making it very clear in our submission to the forthcoming spending review that we need significant additional investment in our universities to ensure that the students we want to at tract are being well served. We have world class provision that will be in jeopardy if we don't get new money for teaching infrastructure, and student support services".
That very adequately sums up the case that I have sought to make.
I should have liked to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, into the area of apprenticeship schemes and vocational education generally. That is an area which

641
has lacked attention over a number of years. I have profound sympathy with those young people who are not academically qualified and cannot have the kind of university higher education that we have been talking about, but who certainly deserve the very best by way of vocational education according to their abilities and the country's needs.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I first must apologise for not having had my name down in time to appear on the main list. That is my fault. I shall in future always check more carefully.
I want to refer to an area which has not so far been touched on in the debate; that is, post-16 education for a group of disabled people where education means education in life skills. We have heard much talk about examinations and so on, and about preparing people for work and for going on to university. There are two groups which have inspired me to make this intervention. The first group is those with learning disabilities. I have received briefing information from Mencap. The second group are those with autism and autism spectrum. These groups actually need support and help from colleges—an ongoing process from their schooling days—in such things as life skills.
I shall not bore noble Lords with a second-hand badly regurgitated definition of autism, but basically autistics are people who have problems relating to the outside world. They have terrible trouble socialising. One must teach those with autism about those little white lies that one must use in society. For example, if someone asks whether they look nice, one does not tell them the truth every time. Another example is that if a person has an obsessive-compulsive disorder, he must be told that he should not talk about his obsession with maps or timetables for several hours.
Training for people with autistic conditions is valuable since it could well be directed at those with considerable academic achievement. What they need, provided within their colleges, is help and training to cope with day to day life processes. If such students do not receive any training, they may well be incapable of leaving home, becoming increasing burdens on ageing parents and, once those parents are no longer there, becoming terribly isolated and in need of institutionalisation.
For very different reasons, Mencap has drawn attention to a similar situation in its field. The charity has commented that considerable improvements have been made in this area, but also highlighted the following problem:
"There is some evidence to suggest that despite the changes brought about by the Learning and Skills Act … some providers are still fixated by the belief that all learning has to lead to some form of accreditation in order for it to be funded. This is not the case and it is unhelpful for this myth to be still current".
We need to take into account that that opinion is supported in the Government White Paper, Valuing People, published by the Department of Health.
642
Whenever I contribute to a debate, I seem always to return to the promise of joined-up government. This problem has been brought forward again and again. We need to reach a point where colleges are encouraged to take on life skills training roles, even though the results will not appear on any league tables or earn a qualification or form of accreditation. Unless the Government can take the lead and offer guidance in this area, then we may well be letting down a sizeable percentage of the population, affecting not only the people directly involved, but also their parents and wider families.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, for introducing the debate. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford, who is in Bosnia this week, will be sorry to have missed it. I am also quite sure that she would have heartily endorsed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, as regards the salary levels of university teachers. Although the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is broad, as has been demonstrated by the wide range of points that have been made, in the main I intend to confine my remarks to provision for the 16 to 19 year-old age range.
It has to be said that the changes that have taken place in the post-16 curriculum over the past couple of years have not met with universal acclaim. In fact, I think that I can safely say that they have attracted major criticism from every interested group.
Liberal Democrats want to see a structure where access, inclusion, participation, breadth and quality are the standards by which the system is judged. Students in schools, sixth-form and FE colleges, as well as the modern apprenticeships advocated by the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Trefgarne, all need a flexible, credit-based system which recognises that not everyone will go on to university and in which credits can be accumulated and transferred between courses. We applaud the Government's attempt to bridge the gap between the academic and vocational strands of post-16 education, but recently I heard one head teacher describe what has been done to the curriculum for 16 to 19 year-olds as nothing less than a tragedy.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that the effect of the introduction of AS-levels has not been to broaden the sixth-form curriculum but, in many cases, has had the opposite effect. I have been approached by the parents of sixth-formers in great distress about the state of their children. The parents report that their children are not having any fun because they do not have the time to participate in any of the enriching activities which are so important at that age. When a student is taking four AS-levels, plus PSE, RE and careers advice, that takes up 40 out of 50 periods. They then have to undertake private study, research and homework. When do they take up music? Where is the time for drama? How can they find time

643
for sport or the Young Enterprise Scheme? The uptake of general studies, a genuinely broad exam subject, has already fallen.
The present generation of sixth-formers are the guinea pigs for a policy that has not been thought through. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House whether her department has looked seriously at the possibility of evolving the current system into a baccalaureate-style scheme, based on the widely recognised, well-established and broad-based qualification. The National Assembly for Wales is leading the way. It is piloting a Welsh baccalaureate quite different from the French version which will be interesting to watch. Students will be able to choose either an academic or a vocational route, each providing core subjects and an element of choice that allows for the beginnings of a specialisation. The idea was a key pledge of the Liberal Democrat 1999 manifesto for the Welsh Assembly with a view to providing equal recognition of academic and vocational qualifications in post-16 examinations. I look forward to the evaluation with great interest.
I turn now to the matter of planning and funding post-16 education. While it makes sense for the Learning and Skills Council to plan for provision across regions, the level of funding of students in the different establishments providing for them is a matter of great concern. One might have hoped that the discrepancy between FE colleges and schools could have been levelled up rather than down. In fact, funding appears to have reduced across the board for new students in both sectors. Until now, school places have averaged an annual £3,500 per place, while FE places have averaged £3,050. In future, both will receive only £2,600 for each new student, which represents a serious real-terms decrease, despite all the reassurances given by the Government when the Learning and Skills Act 2000 was going through Parliament.
Although funding has been guaranteed for the first 16 months, growing sixth forms and FE colleges will lose out. The 3 per cent built-in inflation figure is likely to prove inadequate. I shall give an example: in one sixth form that I know of, last year the LEA built in a 3.6 per cent inflation figure. If, next year, the teachers' pay settlement is greater than 3 per cent, say 3.6 per cent, it would cost that school £50,000, or two teachers. Where is the incentive to expand the sixth form in that kind of system?
If the Government want schools to increase the magic figure of pupils gaining five A to C grade GCSEs and thereby gain access to the sixth form—as a precursor to their objective of getting 50 per cent of young people into higher education—then I respectfully suggest that they are going about it the wrong way and are in great danger of shooting themselves in the foot.
It is disingenuous to assume that post-16 school funding can be disaggregated from that for 11 to 16 years. The Government have redirected funding to key stage 3, which all would agree demanded attention. However, if sixth-form funding is cut, schools will
644
support their sixth forms from the rest of the budget. That will threaten the Government's own targets for the remainder of the school.
No one pretends that the funding formula matches the reality on the ground. It is only a means of allocating a global figure. For example, my local comprehensive school spends double its allocation on support staff, as do many schools. However, the Government cannot give schools the power to deploy budgets as they see fit and then complain about how that is done. Government-imposed targets in one area will always have an impact on another area unless both are adequately funded, since naturally all schools will try to reach the targets.
The bottom line is this: is the global figure big enough to provide the right quality of education for children? In opposition, the Labour Party committed itself to wholesale reform of local government funding, but that has not happened. The system presents particular problems for those at the bottom of the league table for LEA funding. While a small cut in the per capita allowance for sixth formers may not present quite such a problem for those at the top of the list, it is certainly more than a challenge for those counties at the bottom, such as my own home county of Cheshire, where schools have no slack in their budgets. Where the global figure is so inadequate, a cut of the order that I have described can be enough to put a school's budget into deficit. No doubt the Minister will tell noble Lords about the millions of pounds of extra funding that the Government are putting into schools, but much of that is not available to moderately successful schools in areas where the percentage of free school meals is low. Many examples can be cited of where the effects of ring-fenced funding have not been thought through. One school I encountered was delighted to receive funding for a great many new computers. However, that school has had to put aside £70,000 per year in order to cover the cost of technical assistance, maintenance and replacement of the equipment every four years. Where is that money coming from? I mention that case as an example of why schools cannot be expected to find extra moneys to make up the anticipated shortfall in sixth-form funding because of other pressures.
The chronic shortage of specialist teachers in certain national curriculum subjects has a disproportionate effect on students in the 16 to 19 age range. It is at the advanced levels in any subject that the lack of a degree in that subject matters most. Although this Government were highly critical of the previous government's failure to plan for an adequate supply of specialist teachers, they have failed to solve the problem themselves.
Secondary vacancies have trebled under this Government according to their own figures. There is now an army of supply teachers keeping our schools going. Wastage is high, teacher absence through illness is worryingly high, and the Government have seen fit to reduce their targets for the number of

645
postgraduate teacher training places. Demographic changes notwithstanding, this is a staggering and unjustifiable strategy.
I now turn to the Cinderella of the education service, the further education sector. Further education colleges face enormous difficulties under this Government, and the Conservatives seem to have no policies to support them as only five months ago in the general election their manifesto did not mention further education at all.
I have mentioned already the cut in funding for places for 16 to 19 year-olds, but the suspension of individual learning accounts for adult learners, and the uncertainties about what will replace them, present a major problem for planners and managers in FE. The Government say that they want to cut red tape, and yet they allow 73 different funding streams and overcomplicate access to the standards fund, and there are major concerns about the way in which performance tables are compiled.
The level of service from the DfES is also of concern. There are currently 500,000 full-time equivalent 16 to 19 year-olds in FE colleges compared to 400,000 in schools, and yet the number of senior officials looking after policy in FE colleges does not appear to be proportionate. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the numbers in the two sectors compare.
I end by urging the Government to pay particular attention to the 16 to 19 age range. It is the gateway to one of the Government's most ambitious objectives of increasing access to higher education. We must get it right. But I make a plea for no further changes or initiatives until there is widespread consultation and the whole scheme is fully thought through.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Pilkington for the opportunity to debate this issue. He made some cogent criticisms of AS-levels, to which I shall return. It has been an excellent, if short, debate, which has touched on many aspects of 16-plus education.
It is not possible to discuss this subject without reference to one of the most serious teacher shortages in years—not only because of the number of vacancies, which is serious enough, but because of the unprecedented number of supply teachers who are being used to cover for the lack of full-time teachers. There is also a problem with the number of teachers who are teaching subjects for which they are not trained.
In so many answers by Ministers—here, in another place and, indeed, before Select Committees—on the issue of teacher shortages, there has been an air of complacency. So often one hears Ministers say that while there is more to do, and while we should not be complacent, there are nevertheless more teachers in post than ever before and the shortage represents only a small percentage of all posts.
646
Any visit to schools will show that there is a real problem of teacher recruitment and retention. Even where vacancies are filled, it is frequently the case that schools have very little choice but to take the only applicant, or appoint one from a very small number of applicants. Over time, whether we like it or not, that is bound to affect standards.
For school-based 16-plus education, there is much anxiety. Let me say for the record that expressing concerns about school-based 16-plus education does not imply criticism of sixth-form colleges or further education, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I believe firmly in choice and diversity at 16-plus.
As to funding—to which reference has been made—since the setting up of the wholly unaccountable learning and skills councils there has been considerable anxiety about the future funding of sixth forms. There is little confidence in the Government's promise that sixth form funding would not suffer as a result of the introduction of learning and skills councils. The Government have introduced an incredibly bureaucratic system where the learning and skills councils pass money down to the local education authorities, and the local education authorities have then to struggle to pass it on to the sixth forms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, referred to the learning and skills councils concentrating solely on skills-based learning, perhaps at the expense of pure academic learning. I agree that there have to be pathways going in distinct directions, but one should be able to travel from one kind of education to another.
The future of sixth forms is at risk. There is a crisis of confidence in our schools about their future. Again it is believed that over time the learning and skills councils will favour the closure of school-based sixth forms, and the most vulnerable will be those in our rural communities.
In a Written Answer to my honourable friend Damian Green in another place, the Minister admitted that pupils who attend schools with sixth forms achieve better results than those who attend schools without them. Mr Ivan Lewis said:
"The proportion of 15-year-olds that achieved five or more GCSEs at A* to C was (a) 52.2 per cent. in schools with sixth forms and (b) 42.2 per cent. in schools without sixth forms".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/01; col. 539W.]
Further pressures on school-based sixth forms have arisen through the far from trouble free introduction of AS-levels. The combination of GCSEs, GNVQs, AS and A-levels has presented problems of timetabling, overlapping of examinations and bunching of examinations at the end of the school year, and has created huge pressures on teachers and students. Whether or not they are right in principle, the advocation and the introduction of AS-levels has caused great stress.
The Government have created the worst of all worlds for students taking AS-levels. As my noble friend said, they do not necessarily broaden the

647
experience of sixth formers and there is confusion about their value. Are students who fail AS-levels supposed to resit them in their final year?
What comfort is there for current year students who have heard Ministers admit that there are problems with AS-levels and who understand that they are being reviewed—and yet they continue to have to take them in this current year?
The former head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Dr Nick Tate, admitted:
"I don't think we fully thought out all the available options before we added a new tier of exams".
The National Association of Headteachers criticised the new A-level system in May. It complained that Curriculum 2000 is damaging students and schools. It conducted a straw poll among its members and found that 60 per cent believed that post-16 reforms were not working and that 40 per cent thought they were working only partially. The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers warned that confusion over the new system is discouraging young people from entering the sixth form.
There has also been much criticism of the vocational qualification. The failure rate for the new vocational A-level is as high as 90 per cent in some subjects. Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Liverpool University, said:
"Vocational A levels have been ill-thought out. They have recast GNVQs in the same shape as A levels, adding another academic route rather than a good form of practical education for employment".
The Government have made much of life-long learning, and none of us can argue with that. But the individual learning accounts were introduced with a great flourish and, I am afraid, they have ended in tears. Only today, I received a press release from the Department for Education and Skills, in which the Minister, Mr Healey, took business leaders to task for not doing enough to tackle the problem of skill shortages. The press release stated:
"The Adult Skills Minister John Healey…told business leaders that they needed to do much more to tackle the problem of skills shortages facing the economy. This follows"—
so the DfES states,
"the publication of the 'Skills in England 2001' report, which showed that I in 10 employers had experienced the problem of skill shortages".
This is the very document that pledged to continue and expand the individual learning accounts, which was published only two days before the same department announced their suspension. That story beggars belief.
From the introduction of individual learning accounts, the department was warned of problems with the administration of the scheme. Hundreds of complaints were received every month. It is not good enough for the Government to claim both that the number of complaints was relatively small compared with the overall number of accounts awarded and that the problem was so severe that, with no warning or consultation, the scheme had to be abandoned.
648
The tragedy of this sorry saga is that the genuine providers and students have been badly let down. Providers are going out of business and some are left with considerable debts. Students are being abandoned and jobs will be lost. Real training opportunities for those on low incomes, who would most have benefited from the scheme, will be lost to education and training. What scheme will replace the ILA and when will it be in place? Is there any chance that the bona fide providers, who are the great majority, can be thrown a lifeline?
What progress is being made on the student finance review? What is the timescale for the review? When is it envisaged that the new scheme will be in place? Who is to be consulted and how? If the proposals that were leaked recently in the press are to believed, students will continue to be equally disadvantaged. Because the review is to be carried out by officials, it is unlikely that there will be wide participation by external interested bodies. I hope that the Minister will be able to disabuse me of that view.
I have sympathy with the view expressed in a recent publication by the Institute of Directors, which touched on expansion in higher education. It stated:
"The expansion of student numbers may have had beneficial consequences. For example, it has resulted in an increase in the proportion of well-educated people for business to employ and so has helped to ease skill shortages in some areas. On the other hand, the increase in student numbers may have adversely affected standards. Fears persist that some new degree programmes are not as demanding as the more traditional subjects. This is not a matter of arcane debate, for the present Government is committed to a further expansion of higher education. Following the Dearing Report, the Government announced that it wanted to see 50 per cent of those aged up to 30 receive higher education by 2010".
As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, the expansion of higher education does not necessarily address some of the key issues.
The institute also stated:
"Clearly, British business needs a well-educated work force in order to enhance its ability to compete. However, it does not follow from this that the UK needs more graduates, regardless of their academic discipline. Britain already has the highest proportion of 21 year olds graduating amongst Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. According to the OECD, 35.6 per cent of people aged 21 graduated in 1999. By way of contrast, only 14 per cent of British employees have intermediate level vocational qualifications compared to 46 per cent of German employees".
The Government have pledged to expand access. Can we be certain that the funding will keep pace with the expansion? Are the Government convinced that the quality of higher education will not suffer? Are the Government not concerned about the number of young people drifting into higher education who would benefit much more from higher quality vocational training in further education or in the workplace? Are the Government satisfied with the quality of all degree courses? Do the Government accept that further education has much to offer young people, both in terms of high quality, sub-degree vocational education and in terms of providing education and training nearer to where students live, thereby avoiding mounting debt?

649
The world beyond school is a tough and competitive place. For our country to compete successfully, the potential of all young people should be developed. The determination to expand higher education must not be at the expense of standards or of high quality vocational education and sub-degree courses in further education, which would be more appropriate for many students. Parity of esteem for all forms of education and training—academic and vocational—is also important. The important issues are the same for post-16 as for pre-16 education: provision should be appropriate to the educational needs, aptitudes and potential of every student. For the Government simply to say that they are spending more money misses the point of the debate. Greater professional freedom, academic freedom for our universities, flexibility, choice, quality and standards are the real issues.
8.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, this has been a most informative and constructive debate. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for raising the issue of post-16 education. Our debate has ranged widely, from sixth form provision to apprenticeships, from further education colleges to adult learning provision. Along the way, noble Lords have been eloquent in their passion for education for all and their commitment to vibrant and high quality provision. I shall endeavour in the time allotted to me to demonstrate the Government's passion and commitment, as well, dare I say, as my own.
Noble Lords have asked many questions and I fear that I may not answer them all to your Lordships' satisfaction in the time available. To save your Lordships' time, I say at the outset that, in reviewing the debate tomorrow, I shall ensure that I write to any whose questions I have failed to answer. I am sure that noble Lords will not hesitate to notify me if they believe that I have answered inadequately.
Our objectives for learning from the age of 14—and for all children—are clear: to enable all young people to develop and to equip themselves with the skills, knowledge and personal qualities needed for life and work and to encourage and enable adults to learn, improve their skills and enrich their lives, especially those adults who lack basic skills.
We have made significant progress. Our strategy started with the early years of education, when children lay the foundations for learning throughout life. The results speak for themselves. Over the past three years, key stage 2 English results have improved by 10 percentage points and maths results by 12 percentage points.
That has helped to transform secondary education, where our key stage 3 strategy has resulted in a 3 per cent increase in maths and a 4 per cent increase in science scores. That translates to better GCSE results: more than 90 per cent of those at Level 6 and more than half of those at Level 5 go on to achieve five or
650
more good GCSEs. The percentage of pupils achieving five or more GCSEs has risen by more than five percentage points since 1996.
We are developing a flexible and challenging 14 to 19 phase of education to deliver a solid foundation for skills training and development. We have almost trebled the number of modern apprentices in training since 1997. From April to August this year, the first 12 Connexions partnerships went live, assisting more than 400,000 young people. In September, 16 FE colleges launched pathfinder centres for vocational excellence, leading the way for another 150 colleges to follow from next April. As with specialist schools, that will benefit the learner and the locality by sharing good practice.
Increasing and broadening participation in higher education is fundamental to our vision for education. In September, we launched Excellence Challenge in schools and colleges, committing more than £190 million to get more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into higher education. Our e-universities project, which is taking forward higher education excellence in online form, took another step forward on 19th October with the establishment of an operating company, UK eUniversities Worldwide Ltd.
We are developing workforce skills, particularly the basic skills of the estimated 7 million adults with literacy and numeracy weaknesses, of whom up to half are in employment. From April to August this year, at least 70,000 learners achieved 105,000 literacy and numeracy qualifications. New national standards, national tests, core curriculums in literacy and numeracy and intensive teacher training are now available nationally after successful pilots in nine pathfinder areas. The Secretary of State launched the "Get On" promotion campaign on 30th August, encouraging all who need help with reading and writing to find it.
That describes the progress that we have made. I shall now deal specifically with the comments that have been made in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked about teacher shortages. I hope that I have made it clear in debates and in answering Questions in your Lordships' House that we are not complacent. We recognise that we have things to do, but we also recognise that we have increased the number of teachers coming into the profession and that we have put in place other measures that I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House. I shall not take time now to go over them again, but I would not wish any noble Lord to believe that we are in any way complacent.
A number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, asked about AS-levels. Noble Lords will know that there were concerns, which I recognise, about the introduction of the examination. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to review the current working of the reformed programme. A full report is expected in December.

651
The review shows that schools and colleges supported the principles underlying the reforms to AS-levels, but, as noble Lords said, concerns were expressed about assessment and the timetable. As a result of those concerns, action has been taken in relation to the way in which AS-levels will be administered. But I was pleased to hear that the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, felt that they were of benefit to her. As the right reverend Prelate said, there has been a difficult birth; we now need to make the system work.
It is important to understand that approximately 60 per cent of first-year sixth-form students have been studying at least four subjects this year. That compares with 10 per cent last year. Therefore, it is clear to me that we have done something to respond to the issues raised.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, about the length of courses is also important. Our three-year HE courses are admired by other European countries. There is no strong pressure to increase the length of those courses and no government intention to do so. Indeed, we want to expand the number of new two-year foundation degrees. I shall refer to those again in a moment.
Accusations have been made of falling A-level standards. We must make very clear that the Government do not accept that A-level standards have fallen. We believe that our A-level students are successful and should be congratulated on the work that they do. However, we recognise that the way in which examinations are carried out changes. That is inevitable. There are different A-levels and different ways of assessing them. However, I do not accept that somehow the advances that have been made in relation to A-levels are a reflection on the standards. We have great students. They do great work and they work very hard. Their parents support them where they can. On that, we should congratulate them.
It is also worth reminding noble Lords that the first cohort of students taking AS-levels has not yet gone through university. However, we have involved university bodies fully in discussions about the development of new AS-levels and A-level reforms. In broadening the curriculum, our proposals have been generally welcomed.
I want to look carefully at the Learning and Skills Council. A number of noble Lords raised questions in this area. It is important to understand that the purpose of the new Learning and Skills Council is to ensure that reform in learning and skills development for young people and adults is both radical and enduring. It brings the promise of universal learning beyond compulsory schooling, with an integrated system of planning and funding for post-16 learning below higher education.
Setting up the Learning and Skills Council from 2nd April has been a massive task. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, raised the issue of the transition and the difficulties involved. We have been trying to merge all post-16 planning and funding into a single organisation. We are confident that we have the right
652
framework in place to ensure that the considerable sums invested in learning deliver real and demonstrable improvements in participation and achievement levels and in the quality of learning.
The right reverend Prelate raised the question of the links with partnerships. The LSC clearly recognises the need to develop and maintain effective collaboration with schools and churches in planning local 16 to 19 education provision. It is considering how to strengthen collaboration with, and representation of, schools and churches at national and local levels to ensure that they have a clear voice in the development of 16 to 19 reorganisation proposals. Our proposed legislation will ensure that the LSC consults fully with all local interests in developing proposals for 16 to 19 education.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to engineering courses. I pay tribute to the work that he does. As the Minister in the department who is responsible for Science and Engineering Year. I am particularly keen on the role that sector schools organisations may play in this matter.
The training and enterprise councils, whose birth I remember, were based on the private industry councils in the US, which I had the fortune to visit in the early 1980s. There were wide variations in funding levels and funding arrangements for the TECs, and that is something that we have tried to examine and deal with in setting up the Learning and Skills Council. There is a new national transparent funding system for work-based learning for young people aged 16 to 25. Funding levels have been adjusted to ensure that the costs are properly recognised in relation to higher cost areas, such as engineering.
It has always been our policy intention that 16 to 18 year-olds, who are relatively inexperienced and less mature, should be expected to take longer to learn—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in relation to schools—and that they will attract less support from employer contributions to training costs than the 19 to 25 age group. That is why there is a differential in public funding.
A number of noble Lords have talked about the relationship of the LSC with sixth forms. I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that no top-slicing of the sixth-form budget is allowed at LSC or LEA levels. Good sixth forms, whatever their size or location, will continue to play a vital role in post-16 learning. New funding arrangements will reinforce that. It is important that sixth forms provide a high quality experience for their pupils, including an adequate range of subject choices.
Our proposals for the Learning and Skills Council are not a threat to small sixth forms, which can collaborate effectively with other local providers. Noble Lords will have great experience of that collaboration in their localities. They will have seen the consortia that have enabled pupils, by working across schools, to gain a greater breadth of experience and opportunity. In answer to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, who, unfortunately, is not in her seat at present, we want to make it easier for 11

653
to 16 schools with a good track record to extend their contribution by opening sixth forms. The criteria that we propose will ensure that new sixth forms will be viable and will build on existing strength in 11 to 16 learning.
We talked a little about the real terms guarantee and referred to the letter sent to Mr Harwood. The Government's real terms guarantee is designed to give schools with sixth forms an unprecedented guarantee that the funding for their sixth forms will be maintained in real terms so long as they maintain their pupil numbers. Once the guarantee has been met, the resources available will be used to raise the funding of sixth forms which are currently poorly funded. Well funded sixth forms will have their funding protected under the terms of the guarantee. In effect, schools will lose funding only if they lose pupil numbers. That has been the case within other parts of education for some time. We hope that that will provide some reassurance to those who are concerned about this matter.
Some concern has been expressed as to whether the Learning and Skills Council provides the most appropriate forum in which to look at students studying A-levels. The implication—in particular as suggested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke—was that A-levels were studied in schools. I want to bring to the attention of your Lordships that more students study A-levels in further education colleges than they do in sixth-form colleges. I believe that it is important to make that point. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will accept that LSC funding for sixth forms has not decreased. Many sixth forms will gain from the new funding arrangements. I hope that she will accept that the real terms guarantee is worth something.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of bureaucracy in relation to the Learning and Skills Council. I hope that she will not mind if I refer her to the bureaucracy that existed with regard to the training and enterprise councils. We are trying to find a system that is less bureaucratic and easier to understand. That is part of the purpose behind the Learning and Skills Council.
I move on to the subject of vocational training. Again, I want to recognise the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, in relation to EMTA. We are not yet in a position to determine what will be a sector skills council. However, I am sure that we shall be in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who is the president of an organisation in this field.
Sector skills councils are important. They were announced on 16th October by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. They will build considerably on the successful aspects of current sector skills arrangements delivered by the national training organisations. As noble Lords may be aware, their focus will be on industry and business sectors. We want to see a new relationship develop between different sectors—business employers, government and public agencies.
654
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to the future of training and to a framework for training. We are determined to raise the standards and improve the breadth of experience for young people who choose vocational training options. That must mean more emphasis on key skills, such as communication, the use of numbers and the better underpinning of knowledge and understanding. That is the intention behind our reforms of work-based learning.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to specialist vocational colleges in the United States. He will no doubt be aware that those colleges combine vocational and general education in a single institution. Further education colleges in this country have a long tradition of providing technical and vocational training of young people and adults relevant to local and national employer needs. We are determined to strengthen that provision, and the additional resources that we have given to further education will, as I said, establish centres of vocational excellence in half of all general FE colleges by 2004.
I turn to higher education. Your Lordships will be fully aware of the review that is underway, which means that at present I cannot answer the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The department is in charge of the review; it will consult; a great deal of work is under way. I shall return to your Lordships' House as soon as I have more to say, and will endeavour to keep the noble Baroness and others informed of progress. I hope that that answer will be satisfactory. I am sorry that I cannot give her more information, but that is the nature of such reviews.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that we take seriously his comments about ensuring that expansion—which is important—is done with understanding and in discussion with universities to appraise what it necessary. I agree that universities are not the best place for all people, but I would not want anyone to assume that therefore children from lower socio-economic groupings do not belong there.
As noble Lords will be aware, 70 per cent of children from higher socio-economic groups go on to higher education, compared with between 13 per cent and 14 per cent from lower socio-economic groups. I am well aware that university is simply not on the horizon for some children who are perfectly capable, could do well and enrich their lives and our society. They simply lack the opportunities. It is incredibly important to ensure that all those who would benefit from university education have that opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred to medical and related courses. In general, such courses remain over-subscribed with good-quality candidates. Medical students receive more favourable student support arrangements, as the noble Lord will know. Students in professions allied to medicine retain a system of grants as well as loans, and have their tuition fees paid. Medical students receive the same arrangements after year four of their course. I accept what the noble Lord has said from his experience and from his experience in Wales. It is not the general

655
experience, but I am sure that Universities UK, which he mentioned several times, will raise those points with us.
I turn briefly to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I am pleased that he welcomes Sir John Cassels' report on modern apprenticeships; we also welcome its broad thrust. It builds on the Government's reforms to strengthen and expand modern apprenticeships and sets out practical steps to help to achieve our ambition of a world-class apprenticeship system. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council will respond to the report shortly. I fully endorse the concept that that forms part of the vocational ladder to higher education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to individual learning accounts. Under that programme, 8,500 providers and 2.5 million people have taken part. That is concrete proof of how much people wanted that opportunity. We acted quickly. The number of complaints was low in terms of the overall number of people involved. Most complaints did not concern the issues about which we had to act. We acted in July: we advised learners to guard against pressure selling. In September, we withdrew all non-personalised application forms. In October, the number of complaints was 8,000–0.35 per cent of the 2.5 million account holders.
We have announced the withdrawal of the scheme from 7th December. All those who hold accounts can book courses until that time for some months beyond it. We recognise the issues for providers but this was a relationship between government and the learner, so we must be clear that that is our prime focus. However, my right honourable friend has said that we will endeavour to introduce a new system; and we will. As soon as I have more information on what and when that will be, I will be pleased to report it to your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised, as always with passion, the issue of disabled children. I was discussing them with some headteachers of special schools, who are concerned to ensure that life skills are part and parcel of our work. I should enjoy another conversation with the noble Lord on those issues, which are high on my agenda. I believe in joined-up government and inclusion for all children and young children to the enrichment of all young people.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke movingly about teenagers and issues for families. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is highly aware of those issues. We provide education maintenance allowances for 70,000 young people aged 16 to 19. We are, through after-school homework clubs, providing opportunities for young people.
I shall make two final points. On the curriculum, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn asked about religious education. We are committed to it; it lies within my portfolio. There is no question but that we are concerned with the spiritual welfare of children, which is important.
656
For noble Lords who are worried about the breadth of the curriculum, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said, children are candles to be lit. I am a passionate supporter of broad opportunities —not simply within the curriculum; we offer children much that goes beyond it. To answer the noble Baroness, Baroness Walmsley, UK education funding will rise from 5 per cent of gross domestic product this year to a forecast 5.3 per cent by 2003–04. Finally, I must tell her that it is not the number but the quality of officials that matters.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that her failure to answer my question about the £900 per year reduction in the funding of school sixth-form places is because she intends to answer it more fully next Monday, when a Starred Question of mine is on the Order Paper on the matter? If so, I shall try to be patient for five days.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I intend to answer that Question properly. I want to ensure that I provide a detailed Answer. The noble Baroness raises an important point. It is not lost on me. I shall answer it correctly, I hope.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. All the nasty issues of post-16 education have been raised: standards, vocational education, AS-levels, turning to the Continent for examples, and funding. I thank the Minister for her reply; she covered all the issues courteously and in detail. I am afraid that we shall all be back, gnawing at the carcass. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
8.38 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [Exercise of certain ministerial functions]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. A1:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall provide the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England with such additional funds as are necessary for the Commission to exercise any functions specified by a direction under subsection (2)."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is simple: it is to question the ability of English Heritage to meet the onerous commitments of the new responsibilities under the Bill to deal with underwater archaeology.
I thank the Minister for her kind letter after the previous stage of the Bill, explaining the financial position of English Heritage. However, the money allocated—£200,000 a year—which is to be ring-fenced for underwater archaeology, will come from the increases that English Heritage was promised before the Bill was drafted. Therefore, the money had already been ear-marked. So it could be argued that the £200,000, which English Heritage could have spent several times over because it is strapped for cash at present, is in effect a reduction in the increase that it is getting—although I am sure that the Minister will not consider it as such.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring forward the case that has been put forward by the underwater archaeological lobby that the amount needed will be above £250,000. In fact it is estimated to be around £1 million or £1.2 million to meet the commitments for underwater archaeology. I hope therefore that the point will be taken on board that the funding of underwater archaeology will have to be re-examined. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: In a general sense it must be that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is correct and that it will be desirable that significant funding is attributed to underwater archaeology on the English Heritage account when this Bill is enacted, as I hope that it will be. That is a point which I am sure the Government have fully in mind since their proposals were very close to those in the Bill as set down by my noble friend Lady Anelay.
I cannot wholeheartedly support the amendment because one would not wish the Government, or indeed anybody else, to take fright at this stage at the financial commitments that ought to follow. Rather, I express the hope that when the Bill is enacted not only will consideration will be given to furnishing the sums which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, says he has reason to believe will be supplied, but constructive consideration will then also be given to the further sums which will undoubtedly be necessary.
However, I should be sorry to see this financial point, significant though it is and ultimately correct as I believe it to be, as an impediment to the passage of the Bill. For that reason I cannot entirely support the amendment, although I support the spirit in which it is moved.
Lord Bridges: I rise to support Amendment No. A1 because it concerns Clause 3 of the Bill, which is at the heart of this proposed legislation. Let us be clear, the intention of this Bill is to authorise the transfer of responsibility for underwater archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to its affiliate body, English Heritage. Perceiving that, I have two consequential difficulties in mind.
658
The first anxiety is that the purpose of the Bill is not adequately reflected in the Bill's title. At present it is simply called the "National Heritage Bill". That is misleading and I give notice that I shall seek to introduce an amendment at the next stage. I supposed at first that a better title might be "Underwater Archaeology Bill", but there are provisions in the text relating to English Heritage alone. It might be better therefore to propose "National Heritage and Underwater Archaeology Bill". We can debate that later. But I suggest that it would simplify the task of those looking through the statutes at large to find the specific law if words relating to underwater archaeology were included in the title. We can be sure that this Bill will be the subject of future litigation and it is important that it should be readily accessible.
The second matter that I wish to raise concerns the wording of Amendment No. A1, which I am inclined to support, as I support the observations made on it by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I support the need to increase the level of resources likely to be available to English Heritage to carry out its responsibilities in the future. Those responsibilities are large and go well beyond the financing of the periodic meetings of the Advisory Committee of Historic Wreck Sites which take place at present. Incidentally, I am informed that the chairman of that committee has lately resigned and I hope that that will not further complicate the transition.
I hear that English Heritage has been making inquiries to discover what cash it can hope to receive to discharge its new mission. The results do not sound promising. This is not a case where the provision of a stool, desk and telephone in an attic room in Fortress House will be sufficient. Because of our long maritime history and our geographic position astride trade routes and strategic battle grounds in the past, we have large areas of seabed to protect and investigate—an area increased by the extension of our territorial waters to 12 miles. All that will require additional effort in cash, people and time.
From my knowledge of the work of English Heritage in East Anglia, it is already suffering from a shortage of those resources. So in one sense it is not surprising, although deeply regrettable, that we were not able to vote in favour of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Heritage on 29th October. Although it was not explicitly acknowledged by our delegate there, the underlying reason for our abstention from the vote in favour of a convention appears to have been that we are almost alone in Europe in not having an effective protection and management regime for historic wrecks. That is disgraceful. In this area of activity we should be in the van, not in the rear rank in company only with Belgium.
My fear is that this clause exemplifies the weakness of the Bill as a whole. It merely authorises the transfer of functions and says little or nothing about the discharge of responsibility. Perhaps that is a result of the Bill being presented in this form by a Member of the Opposition rather than by the Government. But at

659
least I can understand or guess at the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to transfer this difficult subject to another department.
I have been in correspondence with the Minister about the forcible removal of a cannon by officials in her department. Her letter of reply arrived, surely not by chance, on Monday morning last and I shall reply to that shortly. Her letter is evidence, if it were needed, of the inability of those concerned in the department to understand the extent of the challenging issues which we face in the world of marine archaeology. I trust that that large responsibility will fare better under its new custodians. But that will require the commitment of additional resources and personnel skills. If the noble Baroness can reassure us on that point, it will greatly ease the passage of this Bill and give encouragement to those seeking to identify and protect our underwater heritage. That encouragement is sorely needed at present.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree that the title of the Bill is a little peculiar. It is difficult to know what the title should be. Although it relates to matters that are devolved to Scotland and, as I pointed out last time, touches on a devolved matter in Scotland, it is largely an English affair. It is somewhat insulting nowadays to talk about a "National" Heritage Bill when "National" usually means the whole country. I do not know whether or not the noble Baroness will be able to sort that out, or whether my noble friend will. It is an important issue.
If the Committee will allow me, I should like to use the discussion of this matter of funding to thank the Minister for what she has done as a result of a matter I raised at Second Reading. It actually related to Clause 1, but one could say that it relates to the whole Bill. I raised several points about the order which the Secretary of State may make to delineate waters that are adjacent to England and waters that are not adjacent to England; in other words, the waters of other parts of the United Kingdom. I was worried whether there had been adequate consultation. I found that my colleagues who were Members of the Scots Parliament had never heard of the issue, and that seemed to me to be rather strange.
I also asked the Minister about the bottom of estuaries, particularly the Solway Firth, where a wreck might roll from being in waters adjacent to England to being in waters adjacent to Scotland, thus bringing great riches to Scotland or the reverse. The noble Baroness very kindly wrote to me a very full letter on Monday. She had taken a great deal of trouble and I appreciate that enormously. She points out that there is a concordat, by which the different Parliaments together discuss such matters. That does not involve Members of the Scottish Parliament, only officials and the Executive. It may be that the issue will be raised in the Scottish Parliament. If so, how they deal with it will be a matter for them.
Such issues need to be examined at Westminster when they crop up so that we can be sure that devolution is operating well. It will operate well only if we ensure that relationships between the different
660
parliaments are correct. Therefore, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness. I hope that she feels that it was a useful exercise to consider the matter and ensure that we are operating correctly according to the rules as they stand at present.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): Perhaps I may start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and by focusing on the amendment and various points that he made in this little debate.
As the noble Lord stated, I wrote to him after Second Reading and tried to set out the funding arrangements for the transfer of underwater archaeology to English Heritage. I am extremely sorry to say that I need to make a correction to the figures in that letter, but it is a correction on the right side. The grant-in-aid will be increased by £5 million in 2002–03 and £11 million in 2003–04, not £9 million for the second year as I stated in the letter. That is a substantial improvement. Those levels of grant-in-aid reflect the fact that we intend to transfer responsibility for underwater archaeology to English Heritage during that period. As the noble Lord rightly said, English Heritage has been advised that the Government expects it to devote at least £200,000 per annum from that increase to underwater archaeology. That is not a reduction. We anticipated that this would eventually happen.
I should also make clear that that is in addition to the £340,000 per annum currently in the DCMS baseline for underwater archaeology administrative functions which will be transferred to English Heritage. That is the current cost to my department. An increase in spending of approximately 60 per cent will be available for underwater archaeology. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that that is quite a good increase. Underwater archaeology projects will be able to compete on equal terms with land archaeological projects for English Heritage grants.
I fully appreciate, as did the noble Lord, Lord, Renfrew, that English Heritage want to do the best possible job for underwater archaeology. However, Members of the Committee will not be surprised to hear me say that there is only a finite amount of funding available, which has to be allocated by the department according to many difficult and conflicting priorities. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew.
It would be wrong to have an amendment of this kind on the face of the Bill. However, I do not think that that was the purpose of the amendment; the purpose was to probe. I hope that the probing has resulted in my being able to give information which will be helpful.
Before responding to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am grateful to her for her kind words. I am delighted that, having done a little more digging, I have been able to satisfy her about what will happen when the Bill is implemented in Scotland.

661
I think that we are all clear that that will be all right and that perhaps some of her initial concerns were not justified. However, she was right to raise them.
I was pretty flabbergasted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on a number of fronts. I have dealt with the point on funding. Perhaps I may begin with the UNESCO Convention. It is simply untrue to say that the UK abstained from the UNESCO Convention because it lacks an effective protection and management regime for historic wrecks. I really rather resent that suggestion. The UK has had legislation to protect wrecks since 1973, during the lifetime of a number of different governments, and already manages designated wreck sites in accordance with the rules set out in the UNESCO Convention.
However, we have concerns about the convention's proposal that the protection regime must be extended to all wreck sites over 100 years old, no matter what their historic significance. There are literally tens of thousands of wrecks off the coast of the UK. Therefore, we believe that that proposal would be impossible to implement and extremely expensive. The UK is therefore considering its position on the convention. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that the Ministry of Defence has considerable concerns over the status of warships as dealt with in the convention. That was another reason why the Government decided to abstain.
I was puzzled by the noble Lord's suggestion that my department is simply handing over this matter to another department. That is absolute rubbish. English Heritage is an agent of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I work closely with the chairman of English Heritage. My officials work extremely closely with its staff, including its chief executive. The noble Lord used the word "disgraceful" to describe the Government's position on the UNESCO Convention. I hope that I have explained why I think that is completely purple prose and unfair.
Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord also indulged in a disgraceful attack on my officials, which was unacceptable. I find that particularly surprising, given that it came from a distinguished former official.
I do not think that there are any other issues raised by the noble Lord which I need to address in response to the debate on the amendment. However, I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for giving us the opportunity to debate the crucial matter of funding. If there is inadequate funding, the work of English Heritage across all its remit is at risk. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate in such an authoritative way. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her contribution and explanation and particularly, perhaps, for the correction upwards of the figure contained in the letter written to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I am sure
662
that all noble Lords will carefully monitor the actions subsequently taken by the Government in funding matters with regard to English Heritage.
Perhaps it is also appropriate at this point to thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I have found her experience in parliamentary matters, particularly in Private Members' Bills, to be extremely helpful and encouraging. If it had not been for her careful and persistent research, we would not have had such a clear explanation from the Government on several matters. I should like to register my thanks to her.
It is right that I refer to several important matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. He referred to the work of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites and stated that he had been informed that the chairman had recently resigned. Perhaps I should make clear on the record that the chairman retired rather than resigned. I checked that matter this afternoon. Having served on the committee as chairman since March 1996, it is only for personal reasons that she is no longer in a position to continue as chairman. There is no reason that any of us should see her leaving in a sinister light. I am sure that if she were able to do so, she would love to continue with what is the light of her life.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, expressed his anxiety that the provisions regarding maritime archaeology are not adequately reflected in the Bill's Short Title. Earlier today, he was kind enough to inform me of his concerns and I explained then that the Title was chosen on the advice of the Public Bill Office in June, when I went there to discuss the Bill. Staff in the Public Bill Office took great care at that stage to consider what might be the appropriate Short Title and they undertook a great deal of research. I acted upon their advice.
After speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, today, I immediately returned to the Public Bill Office and I am grateful to the staff for their further advice. They have agreed that I may give the following information which I gleaned from my conversation with them. The Bill deals with more than underwater archaeology, vitally important though that is and neglected by many parliamentarians as it has been. But underwater archaeology is part of our national heritage, not separate from it. It is a most valuable part, as I stressed at Second Reading.
The advice of the Public Bill Office remains that the current Short Title is appropriate and sufficient. The staff advised that if it were extended—for example, to become the National Heritage and Underwater Archaeology Bill—it would become more like a Long Title. They pointed out that even when a social security Bill deals with a particular group of people, perhaps only widows, the Bill is still entitled "Social Security Bill". They stated that, for example, the provision to change the national air traffic control system was simply entitled Transport Bill.
Although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has good intentions and that he wants to make it as easy as possible for those interested in the provisions to be able to find the Bill in the indices, I am

663
advised that the current Short Title should cause them no more difficulty in so doing than do other Short Titles in this regard.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord might have further thought about his intention, which he announced tonight, to amend the Title of the Bill on Report or at Third Reading. I would greatly welcome further conversation with him on the matter after the Committee stage and hope that we can resolve it by amicable agreement.
I conclude by repeating my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for tabling the amendment for debate. I am sure that we shall return to these issues in future debates, not least because the noble Lord has a great interest in these matters having been the prime mover in setting up the All Party Archaeological Group, for which we thank him. However, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I shall dodge the arguments put forward in respect of the Short Title. They are wide of my amendment. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised an interesting issue relating to her speech at Second Reading. She asked who would claim jurisdiction over wrecks which were in disputed waters between England and Scotland. However, I can see a different scenario which relates to the amendment; that is, that the two organisations may fight to claim that it was in the other's territorial water because of the funding implications of a proper dig.
I did not expect the amendment to be moved—I was impressed that with the help of the Clerks I had managed to come up with a form of words which was almost acceptable. However, if the amendment were to be agreed to, it would result in the need for an open-ended cheque book. As the Minister said, there are vast numbers of wrecks and the amendment would commit many millions of pounds. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1
Page 3, line 1, after "is" insert ", or may be,"
The noble Baroness said: I tabled the amendment in response to views I have received within and outwith Parliament since Second Reading relating to the protection which can be given to sites. As the Bill is presently drafted, protection for sites can be given only when the Secretary of State is absolutely certain that the site is of historic or archaeological interest.
I am advised that frequently when sites are first investigated—marine environments as such—a clear and positive identification of remains is not easy. Archaeologists may have a reasonable idea of what they might be looking at, but at that stage absolute certainty is not possible.
I believe that if we can designate a wreck site on the basis that one has reasonable grounds to think it is significant, that will give it protection from less
664
scrupulous people or bodies until investigations have been completed. A decision can then be made based on accurate data. At that stage, designation can be withdrawn if the site does not prove to be significant. The important point is that protection would be given by the amendment while investigations were underway. The site could therefore be protected from potential looters.
I am advised that if the amendment were not on the face of the Bill, protection would not be possible and valuable sites could be put at risk. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bridges: As we are still on Clause 3, and as I have been corrected on a number of points, I hope that I shall be allowed to offer a few words of explanation. First, I had understood the chairman's retirement and I am grateful for the correction.
As regards the Short Title, I yesterday spoke to the staff of the Public Bill Office and explained my intention to them. The form of words I used in my speech reflected what I was told. Evidently, there has been a misunderstanding and what I had intended will not be possible. I must consider the situation further.
As regards the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I did not suggest that in our voting record in the UNESCO convention we should give the reason that I cited. I merely suggest that that is the way in which it will be interpreted. It seems odd that we are unable to join that particular convention, which would be an indication of our commitment to the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. I am sorry that we are not able to do so. I did not believe that the alternative explanation given by the noble Baroness was particularly convincing.
Perhaps I may also add in defence of what I have done that in my letter to the noble Baroness I invited her to visit us in order that we could explain our local difficulties. However, in her reply she did not refer to our invitation. It is still outstanding and I hope that she may feel able to take it up.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful for the invitation. However, the noble Lord will probably be aware that there is a long-standing issue around this excavation. It would be helpful if he and I could have a further discussion about it. I am sure that he will also understand that there are a lot of pressures on my time, as on all Ministers' time. My only reason for declining his offer to visit was pressure on my diary. I should be happy to talk to him at some point about the issues which concern him. I had hoped that the letter I wrote to him would convince him. However, it patently has not. But there is no connection between when the letter was sen and today's business. The letter was sent when I received a draft after officials had considered the matter, and I was able to sign it. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I did not write to him either to discourage him from speaking tonight or to encourage him to do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister sits down, I was hoping that she would say that she agreed

665
with my noble friend that this was a desirable amendment. We were discussing the amendment rather than the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Are the Government in favour of the amendment? Do they think that it will suffice?
Baroness Blackstone: The Government are in favour of the amendment. If the Government had not been, I would have spoken. I took it for granted that it would be understood that we were entirely behind it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We were waiting with bated breath to know what the Government thought about the matter. That is why none of us spoke.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am saved by my noble friend Lady Carnegy from having a heart attack. I thank her for getting to the heart of the matter and to the Minister for making it clear that the Government are in favour of the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
"LOCAL AUTHORITY SITES AND MONUMENTS RECORDS.
(1) It shall be the duty of each responsible local authority in England to maintain an archaeological sites and monuments record.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe—

(a) the local authorities with responsibility under subsection (1),

(b) the area of responsibility for each authority, and

(c) standards to which sites and monuments shall conform.

(3) In maintaining archaeological sites and monuments records, it shall be the duty of local authorities to record portable antiquities found by members of the public whose residence or place of work is within the area of the authority."
The noble Lord said: I repeat my thanks to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns for introducing this useful Bill. Perhaps I may say how much I appreciated the Minister's gracious Second Reading speech in which she supported the Bill's principal provisions. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a response to my amendment since we attach great weight to the Government's views on these matters. In a Bill of this kind, we would not wish to move an amendment unless it had, if not the support, at least the acquiescence of Her Majesty's Government.
It is the same in substance as two amendments I set down for the Culture and Recreation Bill which had its Second Reading in January but which was unfortunately not proceeded with in the subsequent four months of the last Parliament. It is a probing amendment. I look forward to the observations that we may hear upon it.
I now realise that it might have been better to set down two amendments: one dealing with sites and monuments records, which I do not believe requires
666
any substantial financial provision, and another relating to the voluntary reporting of portable antiquities which might require such provision. If it seems appropriate to proceed with these matters on Report, I shall set down these two issues separately.
The provision of sites and monuments records is central to the practice of archaeological conservation in this country including rescue archaeology, and hence to the protection of the national heritage. That is why it is pertinent to the Bill. Planning applications for new work are granted at district level and the availability of up-to-date data on archaeological sites which might be threatened or damaged in the course of development is of central importance to the system. With adequate information it is possible for appropriate conditions to accompany any planning permission which may be granted or indeed for planning permission to be withheld. In general, the system works reasonably well, and under the guidance of PPG 16 it is appropriately the developer who pays for any necessary remedial action.
However, the maintenance of local sites and monuments records is very uneven throughout England and Wales. It is a local responsibility but not yet a statutory responsibility. Nearly all competent bodies are persuaded that it should be statutory. That is the view of English Heritage, the Institute of Field Archaeologists, the Heritage Forum (which the Minister addressed a few weeks ago), the Council of British Archaeology and the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers. It was only this week that the Minister welcomed the report on the operation of the Treasure Act. Recommendation 19 of the report states:
"The reporting of treasure to SMRs, which should be done by local reporting centres, needs to be improved, speeded up and made consistent. This would be greatly facilitated if local authorities were in future to be given a statutory duty to maintain SMRs".
I am glad that the Minister welcomed that report, although she did not make specific reference to that recommendation in her welcome.
It is fully recognised, of course, that some SMRs are organised at county level, some at district level while some are organised by consortia so that different detailed arrangements need to be made on an area by area basis. My amendment recognises that circumstance.
The previous government, which had been planning to introduce such a statutory obligation as provided for in this amendment, held the view that this could be done on a de minimis basis: that the costs in each case of fulfilling the statutory requirement would not be so great that they would have to be met by a central government financial provision. That may or may not be the case, for certainly many SMRs are already well maintained. Those that are not would certainly require some resource input. But it is certainly arguable that the means should be found locally and that they would be so found if the obligation was a statutory one. On the other hand, there is no doubt that some additional Government support would be welcome.
It may be that the noble Baroness will, if she comments on the amendment, refer to the proposals in the English Heritage sponsored document—and I am still not entirely clear who takes responsibility for it— Power of Place which we have already considered in this House in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu; namely, proposals for historic environment research centres.
I am entirely in favour of these, as are most of the bodies which I mentioned earlier. But it is very clear that they would require significant funding. I shall be surprised if the Minister were to annmounce today that such funding will be immediately forthcoming and that historic environment record centres are to be set up immediately across the country. Perhaps I may emphasise that I would be entirely in favour of that for it is clear that the statutory obligation to maintain a sites and monuments record would be part of such an arrangement.
But if we cannot be given such an immediate undertaking it would certainly be appropriate simply to refer to future hopes in that direction. It would not he appropriate to use this issue as a smokescreen to hide inactivity and as an excuse for doing nothing for the SMRs themselves. The best can be the enemy of the good and in the field of the nation's heritage we have sometimes become used to seeing neither. I refer here to the failure of the present Government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport to introduce any new legislation whatever in the heritage field and to see it through the appropriate procedures. For whatever the Government's good intentions, as reflected in the Culture and Recreation Bill, it failed to prosecute them in the four months between Second Reading and the general election.
Therefore, I hope that when we hear the Minister's comments she will not seek to dispose of the matter of the SMRs by simply confusing the issue with that of the hypothetical historic environment record centres, which many of us do not expect to see in action during the life of the present Government. That would be no excuse for failing to grant statutory status to the SMRs.
I note that to grant statutory status to the SMRs would be an excellent and inexpensive way of working towards the future HERCs, for some SMRs are held electronically and in most cases it would be possible to divide the data quite readily into open on the one hand, and administratively confidential or just too detailed on the other. Internet access to this open information would be a workable objective and a first step towards the intentions expressed in Power of Place for on-line access to the HERCs. That proposal would of course be in harmony with the Government's "culture online" strategy in so far as we were able to understand it from the rather sketchy outline presented in the Culture and Recreation Bill.
So statutory SMRs can be seen as a necessary first step to statutory HERCs and any failure to implement the HERCs immediately would be no bar to immediate statutory status for the SMRs.
I turn now to portable antiquities. One of the real achievements of the present Government in the heritage field has been the pilot scheme for the voluntary reporting of portable antiquities, and I am sure that we would wish to acknowledge that. The finds officers who have already been appointed are in general much respected locally, but the immediate future of the scheme is currently said to depend on a lottery bid. Even if the bid is successful, it will provide funding for only a limited period. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the Minister for a clear statement on this matter. Unlike the previous element of my amendment, to maintain the scheme on a national basis would require some central funding. It would not be reasonable to expect local authorities to take up this additional obligation without it. But such funding would be limited in extent. Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to give us her latest estimate. Once again, all of this has its culture on-line aspects, and the voluntary reporting scheme for portable antiquities already has its website and Internet access. I should find it strange if the Government could not see the possibility for progress in this respect.
I recognise that the Government have recently taken a number of useful steps in relation to the archaeological heritage. Perhaps I may ask the Minister when she expects to introduce into this House the necessary formalities to complete Britain's accession to the 1970 UNESCO convention on the illicit traffic in cultural property.
The provision of statutory status for our SMRs would be a modest yet highly valuable step in that direction. It would help to fulfil one of the provisions seen as desirable in relation to the UNESCO convention, and more particularly the Valetta convention, which already has statutory force. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I am tempted to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in expressing the hope that he will not press the amendment—obviously, we want the Bill to go through.
However, I want to express my support for the sentiment behind SMRs, if not in the detail set out by the noble Lord. The issue is close to the heart of most archaeologists. It is one of the major, fundamental concerns that SMRs, given their part-time basis and their lack of funding, are a direct impediment to the dissemination of knowledge on which archaeology is based.
I especially echo the noble Lord's comments on the portable antiquities scheme. He mentioned the problems with funding and that it is based on a lottery bid. But an additional problem is that, although the scheme is worthwhile and has been commended, and although it has demonstrated practical benefits, at present it is not country-wide. Vast areas of the country are not covered.
I am an eternal optimist. I believe that, in their reply to Power of Place, the Government will announce that historic environmental record centres will be at the centre of the next Queen's Speech; I very much hope

669
that they will announce that they are to be implemented as quickly as possible. That would solve our problems.
I realise that this is a probing amendment merely to raise the issue. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may take up the issue of the Culture and Recreation Bill raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. He also raised the matter at Second Reading. At that time I did not make any comment. The reason the Government did not prosecute it, to use the noble Lord's terminology, after Second Reading—and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will confirm this—was that Front Bench spokesmen from his own party in another place did not like the Bill. They threatened to table 1,000 amendments and made it absolutely clear that they would not agree to negotiate in the event of the Bill failing to complete all its stages in both Houses if a general election was called. So as a result of what the Government saw as a somewhat unhelpful and intransigent approach on the part of some of the noble Lord's colleagues in another place, the Bill fell.
To return to the amendment, I am familiar with the arguments for placing SMRs on a statutory basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, the matter was touched upon by English Heritage in Power of Place, suggesting that such provision is necessary in the longer term. However, before embarking on such a course—as I am sure the noble Lord will agree—we need clear definitions of exactly what SMRs should comprise and also what it will cost. Unfortunately, I am not able to give the noble Lord an estimate at this stage. We need to give a little more thought to definitions.
As the noble Lord mentioned, as a more immediate aim, Power of Place recommended that SMRs should be expanded to become comprehensive historic environment record centres, the content of which would be widely accessible through electronic media. The report does not explain precisely what such records should comprise, but might include expanding the present archaeological records to embrace historic buildings, whether listed or not, possibly conservation areas, historic battlefields, parks and gardens, portable antiquities and various other things.
All of that is an attractive option but it is a big undertaking. It is important that we look at the practicality of making electronic access to that data widely available given variations in the way SMRs are presently operated. The Government are, of course, giving more thought to how we can improve the present situation. Therefore, I am sympathetic to what lies behind the noble Lord's amendment. We shall have a little more to say about that in our forthcoming historic environment statement which, as I have already indicated on various occasions, will be published before the end of the year. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on one or two of the other issues he raised which do not have anything directly to
670
do with the amendment. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter. It is core to our debates on how we record our heritage both as regards sites and monuments records and portable antiquities. He is an authority on that matter. I was also pleased to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on those issues. I am sure it is something that we shall debate in detail. Certainly, with regard to SMRs, I am very much aware of the patchy provision around the country with regard to their maintenance. I understand from what the noble Baroness and my noble friend said that the Government are pursuing a somewhat different route—that of historic environment records. We shall follow the development of that government policy with interest.
I attended the annual general meeting of local government archaeological officers in July and I am certainly very much aware of the importance they attach to the matter. The reasons I did not adopt the course suggested by my noble friend and include measures in the Bill on SMRs and portable antiquities is as follows. As it is a Private Member's Bill I tried to be as restrained as possible and to cover relatively few issues. I certainly feel as if I have been overambitious, limited though my Bill is. Certainly as an individual I did not believe that I had either the resources or the authority to canvass the views of all local authorities in the country with regard to their current approach to SMRs and the financial implications for them if such a measure were implemented. I was certainly aware that some might object to a statutory system and all would have wished to have government undertakings regarding funding to support such a system. I therefore felt, somewhat reluctantly, that this issue could be resolved only by the Government and not by an individual through a Private Member's Bill.
I was certainly interested in the Minister's comments with regard to the Culture and Recreation Bill. She referred to my colleague in another place saying that the Opposition would table 1,000 amendments unless the Bill passed through all its stages. If that was said, it certainly was not in my hearing. I thought that I had attended all the ministerial meetings on that issue. That may not be the case and I shall certainly ask my honourable friend about what took place. In this House I believe that we tabled 180 amendments. The Government tabled 50 or so amendments to their own Bill before we reached Committee stage. It is a matter of record that the first meeting that the Government offered with the then Minister, Mr Alan Howarth, was offered late in the day. In practice, the Government offered us half a day in Committee on the Floor of the Chamber for a Bill with 40 or so clauses covering some contentious issues. The Minister may have been thinking of Part 4 which concerned culture on-line when she referred to opposition to the Bill. Perhaps, as always, there are two sides to that story. On this occasion, on this Bill,

671
the two sides may come happily together. My noble friend was kind enough to refer to his amendment as a probing amendment. I therefore hope that he will withdraw it.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his somewhat qualified support for the amendment. I understand his position and fully respect it.
We shall not prosecute further the demise of the Culture and Recreation Bill. We could discuss that in greater detail but that might not be profitable on this occasion. Whatever the recommendations of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, I saw many merits in Culture Online and I imagine that I would have seen more if the details had been more fully spelt out.
I am grateful to the Minister for her careful words on the amendment. She said that the Government wish to give more thought to the issue and that they are sympathetic to it. She also said that we should await her historic environment Statement, which we will have before the end of the year. That will be most welcome.
672
The Minister discussed historic environment research centres. I counsel again that the best can be the enemy of the good. While we support the concept of HERCs, it would be a disaster if the SMR issue awaited the resolution of all problems relating to HERCs. She rightly spoke about historic buildings, battlefields, gardens and so on. All those matters have to be resolved in relation to HERCs, whereas very few matters need to be resolved in relation to SMR s. She referred to definitions; I believe that definitions are being pored over and refined at this very moment and that within just a few weeks we shall have agreed definitions in this regard. I therefore encourage the Government to proceed with both approaches, but they will find that the SMR issue can be resolved sooner and that the HERCs issue can be resolved later. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay for explaining the modesty of her Bill; it is indeed demure in all of its aspects and we hope that it will have a very happy passage through the House. To facilitate that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision: ECHR Compatibility
  European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision: ECHR Compatibility
  Extradition Arrangements
  Extradition Arrangements
  Boeing 727 Hijack: Asylum Applications
  Boeing 727 Hijack: Asylum Applications
  UK Passport Holders: Notification of Death
  UK Passport Holders: Notification of Death
  Machine-readable Passports
  Machine-readable Passports
  Somalia, FRY and Sudan: UN Sanctions
  Somalia, FRY and Sudan: UN Sanctions
  Euro Notes and Coins
  Euro Notes and Coins
  Contractors Tax: Inland Revenue Leaflet
  Contractors Tax: Inland Revenue Leaflet
  Home Office: Race Equality Report
  Home Office: Race Equality Report
  Mr Alun Evans
  Mr Alun Evans
  District Council Elections
  District Council Elections
  Heavy Goods Vehicles: Inspections
  Heavy Goods Vehicles: Inspections
  Buses
  Buses
  Railway Inspectorate
  Railway Inspectorate
  Railtrack
  Railtrack
  Strategic Rail Authority Contracts
  Strategic Rail Authority Contracts
  Vibration Directive
  Vibration Directive
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Physical Agents Directives
  Physical Agents Directives
  Local Government Commission for England: Transfer of Functions to Electoral Commission
  Local Government Commission for England: Transfer of Functions to Electoral Commission
  Rural Recovery Co-ordinator: October Meetings with DEFRA
  Rural Recovery Co-ordinator: October Meetings with DEFRA
  Timber Procurement Policy
  Timber Procurement Policy