Sitting of 16 October 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Jamie Cann Esquire, Member for Ipswich. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Financial Services Authority on the review of the regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society from 1st January 1999 to 8th December 2000, which Her Majesty's Government is submitting as evidence to the inquiry conducted by Lord Penrose.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Purley Hospital
  Richard Ottaway: What plans he has for Purley hospital; and if he will make a statement. [3763]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Under the current proposals, Mayday NHS trust is planning to develop a first-class out-patient and diagnostic centre for Purley hospital to serve local residents.
  Richard Ottaway: I am delighted to hear that. I am glad to hear confirmation.
  Is the Minister aware of the concern in the borough of Croydon about the lack of facilities in the south of the borough? In view of that, her statement is very welcome. But on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 as the lowest likelihood and 10 as the highest, what is the likelihood of this actually happening?
  Ms Blears: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the likelihood is extremely high. I am aware that it has taken some time for us to achieve
  1032
  progress—I believe that 15 authorities are involved—but I am delighted to inform the hon. Gentleman that he will have a rehabilitation centre, a physiotherapy gym, specialist general practitioner services, breast screening, diabetic retinopathy services, updating of X-ray equipment, and even more. Those services will be greatly appreciated by people in the south of the borough, and this will be a magnificent centre to serve the local community.

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS trust
  Bob Russell: If he will make additional funding available to appoint a second consultant neurologist for the Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS trust. [3764]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to note that additional funding has been agreed for a second consultant neurologist at Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS trust. The post will be advertised shortly.
  Bob Russell: That proves the value of tabling questions to get results! Is the Minister aware, however, that as of last week the one consultant has gone, and there is now no consultant neurologist in Colchester? Will she provide all possible support in her Department to resolve the crisis that clearly now exists, and, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that both posts are filled?
  Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, some of the issues surrounding the first consultant are the trust's responsibility; but I share his anxiety to ensure that we have the very best neurological service for his constituents. That is why the trust has, I understand, also advertised for locum consultants to help cover the situation, and it is why further support is being provided by the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department shares his anxiety to ensure that patients in his area are given the best possible service.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I suspect that patients in the area covered by the trust sometimes need to be referred to Addenbrookes hospital for brain surgery, as is the case with my constituents. Some of my constituents have to wait quite a long time for such surgery, which is both terrifying and painful. Earlier this year, my hon. Friend's Department told me in a reply that it had recognised the need for additional resources for an additional neurosurgeon at Addenbrookes. Can my hon. Friend give me any idea of what progress has been made in securing that personal service?
  Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is obviously reassured by the success that hon. Members have had today in raising issues about their constituencies. I will write to him further about the specific issues he has raised in relation to Addenbrookes, but I assure him that the Government's proposals in the NHS plan to ensure that we have 7,500 more consultants by 2004 are important in the medium term and, moreover, will guarantee that in the

  1033
  shorter term his constituents and Addenbrookes hospital receive the necessary support and investment that the Government are providing.
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the Minister accept that one of the questions that will be in the mind of any newly appointed consultant neurologist for Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS trust will be "When will the Government introduce their ban on consultants' working in private practice?" Can she tell us whether she or any of her colleagues has estimated the number of doctors who would be lost to the national health service as a result?
  Jacqui Smith: Of course the way in which we use our staff in the health service is vital, and negotiations on staffing issues are under way. I assure the hon. Lady, as I assured my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), that this Government recognise the importance not only of how we use the staff but of the number of staff. That is why we are investing in NHS staff and why there are already more consultants under this Government and there will be even more in the future.

  Specialist Hospital Services
  Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will make a statement on the future of regional specialist hospital services in north-west London. [3766]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): On 8 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved plans to concentrate specialist heart and lung services in a redevelopment of the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals on the Paddington basin site in west London and to maintain services at Hammersmith hospital. The decisions to create a specialist renal service at Hammersmith hospital and to centralise specialist children's services at St. Mary's were made at health authority level in December 2000.
  A review led by the NHS eastern regional office is considering options for the future of the cancer centre at Mount Vernon hospital in Northwood.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Does not the Government's decision to close Harefield hospital demonstrate that new Labour cares much more for the interests of property developers and the money men than for those of patients in north-west London and nationwide, who have made it clear in their scores of thousands that they want the hospital to remain open? Can the Minister give an assurance that the cancer centre at Mount Vernon hospital will not go the same way?
  Mr. Hutton: I understand fully the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the hospital in his constituency—all hon. Members would feel the same—but I want to rebut firmly the ludicrous suggestion that the decision was made in the interests of property developers. My right hon. Friend's decision was motivated purely and simply by what is in the best interests of the millions of people in London and the south-east who will benefit from this major investment in cardiothoracic and other new hospital services for the wider population that the redevelopment will serve.
  1034
  I understand why the hon. Gentleman finds the decision difficult and I have every sympathy with him, but it does not advance the tone or substance of the debate for him to reduce it to such a level.
  John McDonnell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Government' s excellent record of investment in the health service in Hillingdon, with £500,000 for the modernisation of accident and emergency, £1.5 million announced last week for the modernisation of maternity services, as well as a new mental health unit and three new medical centres in the south of the borough? However, the local community is shocked at the decision on Harefield. I seek an assurance that, before any decision is made on Mount Vernon, he will meet the Hillingdon Members, including the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and myself.
  Mr. Hutton: Certainly, I can do that. I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out some of the other decisions that the Government have taken that will benefit not only his constituents but those of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. Services are not likely to move from Harefield until 2007.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister publish the clinical information and evidence on outcomes in the free-standing cardiothoracic centres as compared with those in which services are provided in integrated institutions such as the one proposed at Paddington basin? That information will be considered by other cardiothoracic institutes in similar situations elsewhere.
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we published a consultation document in September on the wider review of cardiothoracic services, and that will contain a lot of the information that he seeks. I understand that the Harefield hospital is the only stand-alone unit providing cardiothoracic transplant services. Elsewhere, they are being provided in a different format. I hope that he understands that we have given these issues the greatest consideration and have taken our decision in the wider interests of the NHS as a whole, including the many millions of people who use the services outside the Ruislip-Northwood constituency.
  Ms Karen Buck: I sympathise with the anxieties of people in Ruislip-Northwood, but my constituents in north Paddington very warmly welcome the decision on the development at the new hospital site by St. Mary's. The chief executive of the Royal Brompton and Harefield trust said that it will create
  "the most advanced heart and lung centre in Europe, side by side with the new St Mary's."
  The only reservation that my constituents have concerns the fact that the new hospital development will not be fully operational until 2007. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the funding decisions for the other developments at St. Mary's will be forthcoming soon, so that we can get on with creating what will be an absolutely cutting edge new hospital for the 21st century?
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We want the new world-class centre on the St. Mary's site to be

  1035
  available at the earliest possible opportunity. She referred to the view of clinicians. The House should bear in mind the views of Sir Terence English, a distinguished cardiothoracic surgeon, chairman of the expert advisory panel on heart and lung services and a former president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who said that the decision
  "represents the most logical response to the case for change across west London."
  I agree strongly with that.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked me—it feels like a long time ago—about Mount Vernon hospital, and I apologise to him and to the House for not dealing with that point. The long-term review group that is looking at the issues has published three possible ways forward in relation to the review of cancer services at Mount Vernon. No final decision has been made and any such decision would have to be made subject to full public consultation. We have arranged for all right hon. and hon. Members who might be affected by the changes at Mount Vernon hospital to be specially briefed next week by the NHS about the issues.
  Mr. Wilkinson: In view of the Minister's answer, I propose to raise these matters on the Adjournment.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on his plans for a national strategy to combat the hepatitis C virus. [3767]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): In March this year, the Government set up a multidisciplinary steering group to assist in the development of a strategic approach to combat hepatitis C. We will be publishing a consultation paper early in the new year.
  Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, which is good news. Is she aware that consultants now consider HCV to be as big a threat as HIV? With possibly 500,000 people infected—many without knowing it—does she agree that there is an urgent need to prevent the further spread of the virus by, for example, providing more and better needle exchange schemes and the provision of confidential but accessible screening procedures?
  Ms Blears: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and of the assiduous way in which he has pursued it. The Government have set up the multidisciplinary group in recognition of the importance of hepatitis C as a public health issue. Members may be aware that drug misuse via injection is the greatest risk factor for hepatitis C. We have issued guidance to those working with drug users, and 93 per cent. of health authorities now have effective needle exchange schemes in place. However, much more work is required to alert people to the possibility of infection with hepatitis C and to make sure that screening, counselling, support, prevention and treatment are at the top of the agenda for the multidisciplinary group.
  1036
  We have set it a challenging time scale to come up with a report and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will play a key role in forming the recommendations.
  Mr. Andrew Selous: Do the Government have any plans to compensate people infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment in the past?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman may be aware of a judgment earlier this year, when a successful claim was made against the National Blood Authority under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 concerning 111 people infected with hepatitis C by blood transfusions between 1 March 1988 and September 1991. The Government have no further plans to compensate those persons infected by transfusions. The matter has been fully investigated. The NHS normally compensates people where it is in the wrong and where action has been taken for which it would be liable. That is not the position in this case and there are no plans for further compensation.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Kevin Barron: What plans he has for reform of the General Medical Council. [3769]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I shall be announcing our proposals for the GMC reform when we respond to the report of the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry in due course.
  Mr. Barron: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the GMC has consulted widely about changes to its structure, and that one of the major recommendations will be a reduction in the size of the organisation from 104 members to 35? Does he support that change? Will he make sure that we have time in this Session to make any legislative amendments so that the proposed changes to many areas of the GMC's work can be made as swiftly as possible?
  Mr. Milburn: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will look carefully at the GMC proposals, and I pay tribute to the role that he has played in the discussions as a lay member of the council. We need to look at the issues in the round. We will produce a response to the GMC proposals not just on its size, but on its functions and the timeliness with which it acts. We must get the balance right, ensuring that the system is more open and accountable than at present without unduly penalising good doctors. The headlines in the newspapers are often full of stories about bad doctors, but it is important to remember that the national health service is full of good doctors. We need a regulatory environment that ensures that innovation spreads and that people are prepared to take the appropriate risks on behalf of their patients and, indeed, modern medicine.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Secretary of State ensure that any reform of the GMC includes representatives who are conversant with integrated health care that involves the use of complementary and orthodox medicine together? Throughout the last Parliament I regularly raised with the Secretary of State the fact that the number of complementary practitioners in the health

  1037
  service had fallen under his stewardship and since the abolition of GP fundholding. Will he undertake to read "Points of Engagement", a report that has just been published by the Foundation for Integrated Medicine, which makes that point clear? What will he do to ensure that some of the 50,000 complementary practitioners in Britain get a fair chance to practise in the health service?
  Mr. Milburn: I am prepared to read the report if the hon. Gentleman will stop asking me questions about complementary medicine. He has been an assiduous questioner on the issue for month after month, after month and he knows the Government's position. I am not sure that complementary practitioners will have a role to play in the reform of the GMC, but the hon. Gentleman raises important issues that concern many people. We responded to the House of Lords report on the issue and I will, of course, undertake to look at the report he mentioned.
  Paul Farrelly: My right hon. Friend will be aware that last week an inquiry by North Staffordshire hospital into a ventilator project for premature babies finally reported. Will he urge the GMC to complete its inquiries into the issue speedily? To restore public confidence, will he also ask the NHS executive to inquire further into allegations of forged parental consents and ask that parents, including my constituents, Carl and Deborah Henshall, are interviewed by the GMC and any such NHS inquiry, because they were not interviewed by those conducting the hospital's internal investigation?
  Mr. Milburn: If my hon. Friend would care to write to me about the points that he raises, I will gladly look into them.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Secretary of State is minded to accept the advice of my hon. and persistent Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), will he bear in mind that one eminent lady QC has demonstrated recently her wholehearted belief in complementary medicines?
  Mr. Milburn: This is becoming a gathering tendency on the Opposition Benches, and I am slightly concerned that it should also include the hon. Gentleman who I would have thought had more sense.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What action he is taking to improve maternity services. [3770]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): To improve maternity services we announced last week the details of an investment of £100 million capital to modernise maternity facilities. We are using the maternity and neonatal work force working group to make recommendations on the staffing and configuration of maternity services and taking special action to increase midwife numbers.
  Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply and for her decision to fund in full the £500,000 bid for vital new equipment at the maternity unit at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituents. Is she aware
  1038
  that the complete refurbishment of that unit has been necessary for some time and will she promise to be sympathetic when the business case for that bid is presented to her Department shortly?
  Jacqui Smith: As my hon. Friend points out, we have been sympathetic to the full extent of the £500,000 investment in his local hospital, which is an important provision in terms of the improvements that will be made for low and high-risk mothers. We will, as always, listen sympathetically to well-made cases for extra capital investment, but I am sure that he will not expect me to provide an answer today.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: All capital investment in this area is most welcome, especially that being made in my own part of the south midlands, but will the Minister also bear in mind the importance of maintaining the emphasis on research into the remaining killers of babies? Of particular importance are the studies of eclampsia and pre-eclampsia. They are the biggest remaining child killers, and also pose a substantial threat to mothers' lives.
  Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need to maintain research and to improve antenatal and post-natal care provision for mothers. The national service framework for children will include consideration of standards in maternity services to ensure that there are evidence-based guidelines and standards for the provision of maternity care, and that there is continuity of antenatal and post-natal care. Undoubtedly, issues such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman wil be part of that continuing consideration.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: On behalf of my constituents, I very much welcome the £421,000 that has been allocated to Milton Keynes general hospital. However, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that pregnancy outcome depends greatly on matters such as smoking, poverty and poor housing. What is she doing to ensure that primary care trusts maintain an emphasis on public health as well on the very welcome investments being made in acute services?
  Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—who, as the House will know, is carrying out intensive and personal research into maternity services at present—is leading work on the question of health inequalities. The aim is to ensure that precisely those public health issues mentioned by my hon. Friend are dealt with—both in respect of pregnant women and in terms of achieving healthy childbirth and healthy children later in life. The work will also ensure that those issues are taken into account in the way in which we provide, commission and deliver our health services.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: The Minister's claim to be improving maternity services will ring pretty false in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies, as it coincides with the announcement that Hemel Hempstead maternity services are to close, with all women's and children's services being transferred to Watford. How can anyone be expected to believe that that closure is temporary, as the Government have claimed up

  1039
  to now, when today's announcement makes it clear that Hemel Hempstead will be the only hospital not to receive a penny for improvement or investment in its maternity services? Can the Minister tell us, hand on heart, that that unit will reopen in due course?
  Jacqui Smith: Changes to the local provision of services can be difficult for individual areas, but they are matters for local discussion. It is for health authorities and trusts to decide on service provision, taking into account local people's needs, evidence of effectiveness, and available resources. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the new and independent reconfiguration panel will take those factors into account on reaching decisions on any future changes in local maternity services. Clear criteria exist for the assessment of any proposed changes, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will be applied.
  Ms Joan Walley: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the additional money made available for maternity services at the North Staffordshire Hospital trust. It is much appreciated, but I am concerned that women who want to deliver their babies at home should be provided for. Will my hon. Friend say what extra help will be given to allow women the opportunity to deliver their babies at home? Will she also review carefully the new proposals to increase the penalties when there is a problem with home delivery?
  Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important matter of choice for women. Some women have considerable choice in maternity care—including the ability to decide where they would like to give birth—but that degree of choice is not as widely available as perhaps it should be. Not everyone has a full range of options, such as home birth, even when those options are clinically safe. That is why, as I said earlier, maternity services are being included in the national service framework for children in a bid to ensure that every woman can exercise safe and informed choices throughout maternity and childbirth. It is also why the increased numbers of midwives that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier this year to the Royal College of Midwives will be important in helping to promote choice.
  I undertake to consider seriously the points that my hon. Friend has made about the fine regarding lay assistance at home births.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister will be aware of the excellent report that the Health Select Committee published in the early 1990s on maternity services—
  Mr. Peter Luff: Under very fine chairmanship.
  Mr. Winterton: Indeed, I was its chairman at the time. The report stressed the importance of midwives in maternity services. The Minister is clearly aware that there is a shortage of midwives, but there is also an increasing demand from women to deliver at home, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said. What will the Minister do about dramatically increasing the number of midwives? Will she tell the House at whose behest the penalty for lay assistance at home births has
  1040
  been increased? Its dramatic increase is a great disincentive for women to deliver at home, which many wish to do.
  Jacqui Smith: I undertook to consider lay assistance in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. I also undertake that if I find the time, I will read the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which I am sure is a major contribution to the issue.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises the need for more midwives. That is why, speaking earlier this year at the Royal College of Midwives conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that by the end of 2002 there will be an extra 500 midwives working in the NHS, with an extra 2,000 on the wards within the next five years. To encourage more midwives to return to practise, we have recently announced a boost of at least £1,500 plus for returners and extra help with travel, books and child care. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that training places have already increased substantially since 1997—there are now 235 more training places than in 1996–97—and we have recently seen a fall in vacancy rates for midwives.
  Sandra Gidley: To follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), bearing in mind that the vacancy rate for midwives is 8 per cent. in the south-east and 17 per cent. in London, will the Minister say whether the cost of living allowance has made any difference to the retention of midwives and whether she has any plans to improve recruitment further? Will she also confirm whether the 500 extra midwives are full-time equivalents, or does the figure include part-time workers?
  Jacqui Smith: Some of the proposals to which the hon. Lady referred have only been in place since April. It is important that we maintain our concern about and commitment to ensuring that extra staff enter the NHS and that midwives are in post. I have already outlined some of the considerable measures that we are taking to ensure that we attract midwives back to the profession. We have already seen some success in terms of falling vacancy rates and the number of extra midwives who are in training. I assure the hon. Lady that we will maintain that activity to deliver on the pledge that my right hon. Friend made to the Royal College of Midwives.
  Ms Julia Drown: I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend wants to do more to support women who make an informed choice to have a home birth. Can she help clear the current confusion with regard to health authority duties? Some women who make an informed choice to have a home birth are told that their health authority does not have a duty to provide a midwife but must simply provide general maternity services. The regulations are not at all clear. Will my hon. Friend ensure that matters are clarified so that women who make an informed choice can be properly supported at home?
  Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the extent of choice for women in their maternity care depends on the number of midwives and the resources in the system. That is why the increased number of midwives and the increased resources going into the system are important. However, my hon. Friend

  1041
  is right that we need to look further at how we extend maternity choices so that women in all parts of the country, not just some, have greater choice, including the choice, where it is appropriate, of having a safe home birth.
  That will be part of the consideration in the national service framework for children on which work has already started.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Notwithstanding the extra money that the Government have announced—including some for St. John's hospital in my constituency—which is welcomed by the official Opposition, does the Minister accept that the level of post-natal care provided through community maternity units is far superior to that provided by overworked maternity units in our hospitals? In addition to funding, what will the Government do to raise the standards of hospital maternity units to ensure that they reach the high quality of care in the community units?
  Jacqui Smith: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new post. This is our second meeting today and I am sure that it is only the second of many. He raises an important point about the need to ensure that, whether women receive their care in a hospital setting—perhaps because of the need for special care for their babies or a particular high risk—or have the baby in a community setting, that care is of an equally high standard. We need to tackle that in the national service framework, but in the short term our investment in maternity services in hospitals, in midwives and in community services, including devolution of more power and funding to those services, is important in ensuring that wherever women receive their care it is of a uniformly high standard.

  Coronary Care
  Mr. David Crausby: What plans he has to improve heart services.[3771]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Improving heart services is a priority for the national health service. Our 10-year blueprint for reform includes speeding up waiting times for heart operations and expanding primary care services to try to prevent coronary heart disease in the first place.
  Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The national service framework for coronary heart disease mentions smoking and tobacco advertising. Can we be reassured that, by banning tobacco advertising, the Government are determined to help people to stop smoking?
  Mr. Milburn: Yes, that is our manifesto commitment. As my hon. Friend is aware, the manifesto is for a Parliament and not only for a year. We remain committed to that measure and will try to find the appropriate time for it, although he will be aware of the special pressures on the legislative programme now. None the less, we will try to do so as soon as we are able. We also remain absolutely committed to tackling the health impact of tobacco consumption. That is why we have moved our position from one of simply exhorting people to give up smoking to providing help so that they can do so.
  1042
  Probably one of the most important things that we have done, and it is one of the most important public health measures to be introduced in recent decades, is to make nicotine replacement therapy and Zyban available on prescription. The results have been very welcome indeed. We estimate that about 65,000 smokers have been helped to give up thanks to the additional assistance that we have been able to make available to them. That will have a long as well as a short term impact on both coronary heart disease and cancer.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that those working in primary care, who are struggling to implement the NSF, want smoking cessation clinics and they want to increase the prescription of cholesterol-lowering drugs, but no earmarked funds are available. Many general practitioners have told me that they have to cut another service to provide for those. Does he also recognise the problem that exists in respect of elective heart surgery? On the one hand he says that the top priority is to ensure that no patient waits more than 18 months—it is soon to be 15—but on the other he says that clinical priorities should determine the order in which patients are treated. Patients who used to be operated on within four weeks for unstable angina or for a bypass often have to wait months because the 18-month waiters jump the queue as a managerial rather than a clinical priority.
  Mr. Milburn: That was a long shopping list, but not as long as normal from the hon. Gentleman. On those two issues, I can offer him a double reassurance. On prescribing statins, for lowering cholesterol levels to prevent against further heart attacks, and aspirin and beta blockers, there is real progress. I can report to him that in the last year alone the number of prescriptions for statins has increased by well over one third—by 37 per cent. That is real progress. We all know that although it is often the glamorous side of cardiac care that attracts most attention, actually the biggest impact that we can make is probably in primary care, so that is a welcome move in the right direction.
  As for the other issues about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, let me be candid with him: people wait far too long for a heart operation in this country. That is undoubtedly true and he knows the reasons. There has been a history of neglect and underinvestment, particularly in our cardiac services. It is that that we are trying to put right. There is extra, earmarked money going in. I put an extra £50 million in to ensure more heart operations, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that the NHS has made very, very good progress indeed. We were originally due to complete a further 3,000 heart operations by March next year; in fact, that target has been achieved ahead of schedule. That is bringing life-saving surgery to many thousands of people, and I hope that before too long we can make even faster progress to ensure precisely that the cases with the highest clinical need are dealt with most quickly.
  Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for making the right decision as regards the continuation of the transplant unit at the Northern general hospital in Sheffield. Will he accept that this has been a hugely popular decision? We recognise that advice had been given to the Secretary of State to the contrary,

  1043
  and we are always happy to offer congratulations when Ministers use their own judgment—and that of the public in Yorkshire and round about—and make the right decision.
  Mr. Milburn: The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), has just whispered to me that I must be losing my touch because I have made a popular decision. I am glad to accept the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). It was the right decision to take. We want to expand heart services to the public and we want to undertake more transplants rather than fewer; and of course there is a big effort being made across the country to increase the number of organ donations. In those circumstances, it seemed pretty odd to me to be reducing cardiothoracic transplant services, not only in Sheffield but in Birmingham and Manchester too. I am pleased to be able to say that the right decision has been taken, that those services can now look forward to a good future and that, hopefully, we can help to bring some good to many people.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. David Cameron: What plans he has to safeguard and expand cottage and community hospitals. [3772]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Community and cottage hospitals play an important role within the national health service. They provide an essential service to patients, especially in the recuperative phases of recovery from illness or accident, and will help us to meet the target of introducing an additional 5,000 intermediate care beds by 2004.
  Mr. Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. He may recall that the Burford hospital in my constituency was closed during the last Parliament. Is he aware that a local body called the Phoenix project has raised money to buy the building and provide a range of services and clinics to promote healthy living, which is exactly in line with Government policy? Will he encourage the local primary care trust to get on and sell the building to the Phoenix trust so that that can go ahead? I know that he may not have all the details but time is running out; it is urgent and I should really welcome his intervention in this matter. We want to save our local health centre.
  Mr. Hutton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising that point and of course I am more than happy to look into the issues that he has raised.
  Lawrie Quinn: I welcome the introduction of the new primary care trust for my area of North Yorkshire. For the first time in probably a decade or more, the Whitby community hospital feels that it has a future—that it has a role to play in undertaking proper health care for people in the Whitby and North York moors area of my county. Will the Minister take every opportunity to make sure that the people who live in the remoter, rural parts of the county of North Yorkshire get
  1044
  better access to community hospitals such as the Whitby community hospital and that the full intentions of the primary care trust idea can be brought to the forefront?
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I have had the pleasure of visiting Scarborough with him and seeing some of the improvements in the NHS in relation to the care of the elderly that have taken place there; they are very long overdue. Older people are the largest users of health care services in this country, and it is very important for us to continue to improve the range of care services available to them. My hon. Friend raises a particularly important issue about access to those services in rural communities, but that is precisely the reason why we set up primary care trusts: they can assess those needs and ensure that the necessary arrangements are put in place so that older people can gain access to the wider range of health care services that we are committed to establishing.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the Minister agree that cottage and community hospitals are more vital than ever as places of convalescence, given the huge increase in the number of elderly people—680,000 this year—who are in hospital beds because they have nowhere else to go? This morning, the Prime Minister spoke of the problem of bed blocking, but is it not a fact that 50,000 care beds have been lost in the past five years due to Government policy? Will the Minister now apologise for the misery and distress caused to so many elderly people? Will he tell us when that trend will end, so that we can see a picture for the future in which the number of care beds does not decline year after year?
  Mr. Hutton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities and hope that in future he will do his homework a little more thoroughly than he has done today. He complains about the lack of beds in the NHS, so I shall remind him who cut the number of beds in the NHS.
  Mr. Heald: You did.
  Mr. Hutton: No, the Conservative party did. Under the Conservative Government, 60,000 beds were lost in the NHS, and the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not shout at anyone, but especially not at the Minister.
  Mr. Hutton: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends if I have excited them. They do not like the truth, and the truth is that 50,000 beds have not been lost in the care homes sector. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that. Of course, we have recently announced a substantial additional investment in the NHS and local authorities to ensure that the provision of care for older people is right. I am afraid that it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman, given his new responsibilities, to lecture the Government about a lack of funding, given that he would not even match our social services funding during the previous Parliament.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that bed blocking is the direct

  1045
  result of the closure of community and cottage hospitals and, indeed, that it is nonsense to suggest moving people to private sector hospitals, such as those run by Westminster Care, which was exposed at the weekend as doing a very bad job, while we allow the closure of NHS beds and the movement of NHS staff to the private sector? I hope that he will resist that very actively and clearly in the future.
  Mr. Hutton: We need to ensure that a range of provision is available for older people, and I can tell my hon. Friend that there are almost 2,500 additional NHS intermediate care beds in England over and above the figure that existed in 1999. What is really important in this context is that older people, as well as other patients in the NHS, get access to the best available care. If we can use and commission appropriate care services at the highest level in the private sector, we fully intend to do so.

  General Practitioners
  Tim Loughton: If he will publish whole-time equivalent target figures for additional GPs in service by 2004. [3773]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The NHS plan commits us to providing at least 2,000 more general practitioners by 2004. The number of whole-time equivalent GPs resulting from that increase will clearly depend on a number of factors, but we expect that the overwhelming majority will be full-time.
  Tim Loughton: Using the phrase "will clearly depend" is not the same as saying that there will be 2,000 doctors. Is it not now patently clear that all the Secretary of State's and the Prime Minister's much trumpeted claims about new doctor and nurse recruitment do not bear close scrutiny? It later transpired that of the 2,000 extra GPs promised in the next four years more than half were in the pipeline already. Is it not the reality that, as the British Medical Association has made patently clear, whole-time equivalent GP numbers are static and that many experienced doctors are still leaving the NHS or are set to leave or retire early, when we can ill afford to lose them? If the Secretary of State or the Minister cannot guarantee that promising 2,000 extra doctors will actually mean that there will be 2,000 extra, how can we take their pledges on nurse recruitment or any of their other election promises seriously?
  Mr. Hutton: There will be 2,000 extra GPs, and we have made that very clear. The hon. Gentleman's arguments lack both consistency and credibility. On consistency, it is worth pointing out to the Conservatives that they cut the number of GPs in training by 20 per cent. between 1991 and 1996. Had the number been maintained at its 1991 level, there would be nearly 700 more GPs in practice today and 1,000 more by 2004. It is not terribly flattering to the hon. Gentleman to pretend that he is committed to a policy when his record in Government shows that he took the opposite approach.
  In addition, the hon. Gentleman criticises us for lack of ambition in recruiting GPs. The Tory manifesto for the last election contained no pledge to increase the number of GPs in the national health service: not a single GP was

  1046
  promised. We are determined to reverse the trend that we inherited and are increasing the number of GPs as well as the number of full-time equivalent GPs in the NHS.
  Judy Mallaber: I have been visiting GP practices in my constituency in recent weeks and have seen improved services such as counselling and smoking cessation. Will my right hon. Friend assess the impact of the new primary medical services system and the appointment of nurse practitioners and other clinicians in enabling practices and GPs to operate more efficiently and flexibly? Will he also reconsider the NHS information systems to ensure that there is proper and easy access to the information that is required by GPs and PCTs?
  Mr. Hutton: Overall, the introduction of PMS has had a hugely beneficial impact on the delivery of primary care services. We intend to continue those initiatives to ensure that GPs and their patients have the greatest access to choice. PMS has allowed us to make sure that we can provide primary care services in some of the most underprivileged and deprived parts of Britain. That is an important step forward.
  My hon. Friend is also right about information services for GPs and primary care practice. It is important that we improve those for the benefit of not only GPs but their patients. That is why we are embarking on a major investment in information technology upgrading across the NHS, which will benefit many people.
  Derek Conway: Is the Minister aware that recruiting additional GPs will prove difficult in my constituency because the Bexley primary care trust is just under £8 million short of its capitation weighting? Will he address that problem? Although it may be comfortable for him to live in the past, he has been in office for a while and it is time that he took responsibility for the shortfall that is affecting our areas.
  Mr. Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants more money spent on the NHS. So do we, but we are providing the extra resources, unlike the Conservatives who clearly would not have been able to. He knows that we are reviewing the formula that determines how resources are distributed across the NHS. That has not been completed, but I hope that it will be shortly. I hope that he will be able to endorse and support one change—the emphasis that we are placing on the role of primary care trusts as the main conduits through which resources reach the front line of the NHS. It is better for the NHS for those to be as close to the front line as possible. I am sure that that will benefit his constituents and all patients in Bexley.

  Endometriosis
  Jane Griffiths: If he will make it his policy to recognise endometriosis as a long-term cyclical condition. [3774]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Endometriosis is a serious condition that can affect the lives of many women and their families throughout their reproductive years. The symptoms of endometriosis and their effect on individual women vary

  1047
  greatly. There are, however, acknowledged treatments and surgical procedures for this condition that can help very many women.
  Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply which will be welcomed by many of my constituents and, indeed, the many thousands of women around the country who suffer from endometriosis. Can she assure me that steps will be taken to improve and speed up diagnosis? Many women first present with symptoms in their teens, and it may be 10 years until they are finally diagnosed and receive appropriate treatment.
  Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we need to ensure greater awareness of endometriosis. The NHS plan gives us the opportunity to improve, for example, the training of GPs and gynaecologists. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), had a useful meeting with the National Endometriosis Society, and officials are due to meet the society again this week. It is funded partly by the Department of Health's grant programme, and we are very willing to offer advice and assistance on how to raise awareness of the problem. In addition, the NHS plan will allow us to ensure that GPs and gynaecologists are in the best possible position to provide the treatment that women clearly deserve.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: What plans he has to reduce the number of patients who fail to keep out-patient appointments. [3775]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): As part of the NHS plan, all out-patient appointments will be pre-booked by the end of 2005. Patients will be able to choose well in advance a date and time that is convenient to them.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for that response. I trust that the trusts that will have to implement the system will receive the finance due to them so that they can do so, and that the Government will be reporting on progress in achieving the targets that they have set themselves. Does the Minister think that, given continuing long waits to see, for example, a consultant or a radiologist in the first place, more should be done to convince patients who miss appointments that they are wasting NHS time and money and making the wait for their fellow patients much longer?
  Ms Blears: Yes, the hon. Lady is right to say that more steps need to be taken to convince people about the cost to the service. Many hospitals now publicise such costs so that patients are aware of them. Many also telephone to remind people of their appointments, which often results in tremendous reductions in the number of appointments that are not kept. We are doing what works.
  There will be more investment. There is an outline business case for a new electronic system to ensure that all out-patient appointments can be booked in advance. The very best way of getting patients to attend is to involve them in their treatment—for example, so that they feel ownership of their appointment—and to make
  1048
  appointments that are convenient for them, for their child care and for their looking after the rest of the family. That is the way forward.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend making excuses for patients? I recently visited a Leeds teaching hospital and was told by the receptionist that 40 per cent. of people with appointments on that day did not show. That is a disgrace and a misuse of the health service. Surely we do not need electronic devices. A simple deposit could be paid to be returned when one showed for one's appointment. Could not we return to some basic common sense in the health service?
  Ms Blears: There is clear evidence that electronic booking systems are working. At Sandwell hospital, the percentage of patients who do not appear has fallen from 6 to 1 per cent; in north-west London, the figure has fallen from 13 to 6 per cent; and in Birmingham, the percentage of appointments that patients failed to keep has fallen from 20 to 5 per cent. as a result of electronic booking. As usual, what this Government do is what works.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. James Plaskitt: What plans he has to improve emergency services. [3776]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The Department is currently undertaking a review of the provision of emergency care services, with the help of NHS staff. In the meantime, the extra investment that we are making in accident and emergency departments, GPs' out-of-hours services, NHS Direct and, of course, the ambulance service are designed to ensure that more patients can be treated more quickly.
  Mr. Plaskitt: In Warwick, we shall he opening a brand new state-of-the-art accident and emergency unit in December. It is the product not only of specific Government funding but of substantial community fundraising. However, attendance figures at the A and E are rising sharply year on year. Is my right hon. Friend confident that, across the programme as a whole, we are investing enough to meet increasing capacity needs?
  Mr. Milburn: Yes, I am. Not only are we investing in the front line—A and E services—but, as my hon. Friend will be aware, just last week we made £300 million available to ease pressures on beds in hospitals and to deal with the vexed problem of delayed discharges. Providing that we keep making the investment and implementing reforms alongside it, I am confident that we can get better and faster care to patients.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government have three duties when faced with a biological threat such as anthrax? First, they should ensure adequate intelligence to warn of potential threats. Secondly, they should develop strategies and responses to deal with possible attacks. Thirdly, they should ensure that doctors are given sufficient information

  1049
  to maximise early diagnosis. Is he satisfied that he and his colleagues can give the public complete reassurances in those three areas?
  Mr. Milburn: I can offer assurance on those three points. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his support on the issue. I have briefed him and the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the necessary preparations that we have made.
  It is the Government's obligation to prepare for all eventualities, however remote the risk might be. As right hon. and hon. Members may be aware, there have been a number of suspect incidents today. The emergency services have responded and investigations are taking place. It is important that people remain calm and go about their normal lives. I recognise that this is an anxious time for all concerned, but the incidents have demonstrated that the contingency plans developed by front-line emergency services within the NHS and the police are effective and can be deployed rapidly.
  It might be useful and for the benefit of the House if I set out what we have done more generally since the appalling events of 11 September. First, since the atrocities took place, the chief medical officer has reviewed all our plans for protecting the public from any possible biological or chemical attack. Secondly, extensive contingency planning is already in place based on guidance that we issued to the NHS last year, well before the appalling events in New York, Washington and elsewhere in America. New guidance has been issued and we are planning to issue still further guidance.
  Thirdly, we have taken the appropriate steps to secure additional supplies of drugs and equipment for use in an emergency. Fourthly, we have cascaded details to doctors about how they can access information from the Public Health Laboratory Service website on signs and symptoms of anthrax. Finally, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, I signed in Washington last week a joint United
  1050
  Kingdom-United States agreement on protecting our people from bio-terrorism by pooling our intelligence, our expertise and our planning.
  We have taken those steps not because there are specific threats against us, but because it would be foolish to be anything other than vigilant. I believe that we should take great comfort from the fact that in this country we have some of the very best public health experts in the world, and in our emergency services we have people who have a hugely impressive track record of dealing with extremely demanding situations. We shall, of course, keep all our plans under active review.
  Dr. Fox: Does the Secretary of State agree that anthrax is, in fact, a low-risk threat? It is not transmitted from person to person and is therefore an ineffective agent for inflicting mass damage. However, it is a good agent of terror if a few cases result in widespread panic. Is it not essential that inside and outside the House we deal with the threat in a proportionate manner, so that we do not create unnecessary fear and thereby do a favour not to the public but to the terrorists?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is right about anthrax. The best expert advice is that it is impossible to pass on anthrax from person to person and, as he knows, we have good plans in place to deal with it. The best intelligence that we have is that it would be extremely difficult for anyone to deliver a quantity of anthrax sufficient to cause harm to a large number of people. However, as we can see from events in America, the result of anthrax attacks has been to spread fear among a large number of people.
  I know that many people on both sides of the Atlantic fear both the prospect of further terrorist attacks and the form that they might take. We all understand those concerns, but as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is important that fear does not win. Fear is the terrorists' victory. I repeat: these is no need for public panic. Our response—all our responses—in the House, among the public and in the media is and must be proportionate. Our duty is to go on planning for all eventualities.

Michelin, Burnley
3.34 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the major announcement, made within the past two hours by the Michelin management, that production will cease at their Burnley factory in March next year, with the effect of causing 452 people to lose their employment in Burnley.
Patrick Lepercq, Michelin Tyre managing director, and John Lancaster, manager at the Burnley factory, broke that serious and tragic news in Burnley today. Michelin opened its factory in Burnley in 1960; it was the company's second tyre factory in the United Kingdom, the first being the Stoke factory, which opened in the 1920s. Stoke has ceased tyre production—the announcement was made last year—but is to lose another 280 jobs as a result of the latest announcement. The factory in Burnley produced smaller truck tyres.
The news is a major blow to the area, and it is a sad blow to John Lancaster, who has been in touch with me for some time and trying to find a solution to the problems in the tyre industry. He would be the first to say that had it not been for the co-operation of the work force and the unions on site, production would have ceased some years ago. However, that is no consolation to those in Burnley who face the loss of their job, or to their families.
The problem in Burnley is made worse by the fact that it is heavily dependent on the manufacturing sector and aerospace, which are dominant local industries. Other redundancies have already been announced this week at Hurel Hispano and, as we all know, the future looks grim in the aerospace industry at present. Those issues are crucial to Michelin workers, the people of Burnley and the whole manufacturing sector, which is vital to the United Kingdom economy. A debate on the implications of the announcement and the way forward for manufacturing is urgently needed.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.36 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder what protection you can give Members who are ill informed and misinformed by the Government about their proposals? Last week when Parliament was recalled, I took the opportunity to table a written question about the calling in of a planning application in my constituency. I had a reply from a Minister yesterday, which said that a colleague would consider the matter, but had not yet come to a conclusion. This morning, I received in the post a letter dated 12 October from the east midlands office, informing me that the Secretary of State had decided against calling the matter in. It was disingenuous of the Government to tell me yesterday that no decision had been taken when, in fact, one had already been reached.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me the papers and details, and I will look into the matter.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to the final subject raised at Health questions, have you been informed by the House authorities about what we should tell our staff who, on the whole, open our mail and may therefore fear that one of us may receive such substances in our mail? Can you give us any guidance on that matter?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Lady knows, the Serjeant at Arms is responsible for security, and I believe that he will contact every hon. Member and give advice to staff, both in the House and in constituency offices. I hope that that is of help to the hon. Lady and other hon. Members.

Coalition against International Terrorism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
3.38 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): This is the fourth time since 11 September that the House has had the opportunity to debate the international community's response to the threat of global terrorism. It is right that that should be so; whenever the country and the world face as grave a threat as they do now, the House should more than ever exercise its two central roles as the voice of the nation and as the means by which the Executive are held to account.
In the three prime ministerial statements and the three debates so far, there has rightly been much questioning of the decisions taken by Government, but the proceedings as a whole have been characterised by the widespread bipartisan support for our comprehensive approach. The breadth of that support has been a great source of strength to the country, those of us with responsibility for government and, above all, our armed forces. We in the House may sometimes put our reputations on the line in pursuit of a policy; those in our Army, Navy and Air Force put their lives on the line. They do it readily, they accept orders. They are the finest forces in the world, but the fact that the whole nation is backing them in their endeavours is hugely important to them and their families.
The last statement and debate in the House took place on Monday last week, which was 8 October. The military action had commenced the night before. It has continued for the past nine days. Cruise missiles were launched from a Royal Navy submarine on the first night and again on 13 October. We have continued to be involved in the military action through the provision of refuelling and reconnaissance aircraft and the use of our facilities at Diego Garcia. Our best assessment of the strikes so far is that we have severely damaged elements of the Taliban regime's military capability. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will say more about that later.
However, few conflicts are resolved by military action in a matter of days. This was never going to be one of them. As both President Bush and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear from the outset, the terrain, weather and complexity of the targets mean that we can expect no early conclusion to this campaign. It will take months, not days or weeks. During this period, again as the President and Prime Minister have underlined, we will be considering a range of military options.
Mr. John Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, in the course of his coalition building, any limits to the maxim, "My enemy's enemy is my friend"?
Mr. Straw: I do not believe that that maxim is particularly appropriate in the current circumstances. I understand the implications of the hon. Gentleman's
1054
question, but we are being careful, especially in respect of military coalitions, to ensure that we are dealing with our friends' friends.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the House be clear about the exact and precise objective of continued bombing after nine days?
Mr. Straw: Yes. If my hon. Friend will wait 30 seconds, he will hear me refer to a document—I am placing it in the Library—that sets out in detail our campaign objectives.
The strategy is clear. It is to ensure that the terrorism that the world saw on 11 September and the capacity to deliver it in future are eliminated. For the benefit of hon. Members, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence and I are, as I said, today publishing a document that sets out in detail the campaign objectives. In short, acting in self-defence, our aims are to dismantle the terrorists' network; to break the power of those who harbour the terrorists; and to end the threat to security at home. We will achieve those aims by a combination of military, political and humanitarian means.
The military action has been carefully calibrated and every effort has been made to ensure that it is proportionate to the task and within our obligations in international law. All of us in the Government, the House and our armed services would have wished for a different path to the resolution of this terrorist threat. A peaceful and achievable path was laid out very clearly by the President of the United States and our Prime Minister from an early date: an ultimatum to the Taliban regime to hand over Osama bin Laden and his associates and to close down the al-Qaeda network and terrorist camps, and enable us to verify that. That cannot be emphasised frequently enough, and neither can the response of the Taliban. This is a regime that, for years, has ignored international standards of human rights, fairness and respect for innocent life. Then the same people, the Taliban, for whom justice for others means show trials or no trials, brutal imprisonment and summary execution, suddenly demanded the evidence against bin Laden.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister published the evidence. It was incontrovertible, but just as conclusive the have been the damning admissions from the mouths of bin Laden and his associates themselves. How else are we to take their hollow warnings, which have been broadcast on television, that Muslims
"should avoid tall buildings and travelling in planes"?
Bin Laden has killed before; his victims included many Muslims. As his warning shows, he will kill again if left to himself.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I take it that the document that the Foreign Secretary is placing in the Library is entitled "Defeating International Terrorism: Campaign Objectives." The Prime Minister's press secretary briefed the press about it last Thursday afternoon. Given the huge interest of hon. Members and the wider public, especially in the extent of the military aspect of the campaign, is there any reason for the delay of five days before placing the document in the Library?
Mr. Straw: No. It should have been placed there earlier. I am now rectifying the error.

1055
When military action is taken, some say that it is neither necessary nor proportionate and that there is another way. The response of those who hold an alternative view is that we should follow the example of Milosevic and take bin Laden to an international court. My answer is yes; let us follow the example of Milosevic, who now awaits trial before an international court. However, he stands trial not as an alternative to military action but because we took such action.
Milosevic engaged in repression on a massive, brutal scale against tens of thousands of men and women who happened to be Muslims. Like bin Laden, Milosevic was not open to negotiation, pleas of common humanity or United Nations injunctions. He believed that he was impregnable. If the world had not followed the decisive lead of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and agreed to military action, including 78 days of continuous bombing, Milosevic would still be in power, there would be no trial and many tens of thousands of Kosovo Muslims would be dead or living in abject deprivation.
If we will the end, we are obliged to will the means. Bin Laden, like Milosevic and other tyrants before them, has forced us to will the only effective means that we can: targeted, proportionate military action. Without war in the Balkans in the 1990s, we could not have established peace with justice and security there. Again, there will be no peace, justice or security for the people of Afghanistan or the world unless we take military action against the terrorist threat.
There is only one caveat to my comparison with Milosevic. The tribunal for former Yugoslavia, where he faces trial, was established to try cases that no states are able or willing to try in their courts. In the case of bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network, there is a state: the United States of America. Bin Laden committed crimes of mass murder against the USA and its people. He should therefore be tried under US law if he becomes available for trial.
The House must face the reality that bin Laden and his associates will not deliver themselves up. Those who call for him to go on trial are not so much whistling in the wind as evading the clearest and only choice: to indulge and appease bin Laden by doing nothing or to defeat his evil by taking effective military action within a comprehensive political strategy. I know of no other choice.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: We are repeatedly and rightly told that the events of 11 September constituted a crime against civilisation and the international community. Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that there are enormous advantages to setting up an international court now to draw the indictment and subsequently to try bin Laden in his absence or in his presence, and for it to represent international jurisprudence and include one or two Islamic judges? We could thus send the international community the clearest message that we regard the matter as an international crime to be tried internationally.
Mr. Straw: My hon. and learned Friend must face a fact that the House has faced and accepted: the choice is not that easy. I am afraid he must just get used to that brutal truth. There is to be an international criminal court; it is being established; we are in the vanguard of ratifying
1056
the treaty. The arrangements will not come into force until 60 nations have ratified the treaty. In any event—as my hon. and learned Friend will know, given his legal learning—under its statutes, the ICC has no retrospective jurisdiction. So no such tribunal exists, or is likely to exist, to try bin Laden. The sooner my hon. and learned Friend, and the few Members who share his view, accept that we are not seeking to evade the clear choice that lies before us, the better: there is no evading that choice.
As my hon. and learned Friend knows, international criminal courts are not a substitute for national jurisdictions, and never have been. They are there to take action against individuals who have committed crimes for which a relevant national jurisdiction will not take action itself. That simply does not apply in this case, or in hundreds of others that we could think of.
When we were faced with terrorist outrages, deaths and conspiracies at the hands of the Provisional IRA, we in the House did not say that we should hand these people over to an international criminal court; we said that we should deal with them here, because their crimes were being committed here. These murders—these acts of mass murder—were committed in the United States, on the terrain of the United States, against the law of the United States. Were bin Laden to offer himself up, it is there, according to the law of the United States, that he should meet his trial.
David Winnick: In view of the charge made against the international community—particularly the United States and Britain—that we are engaged in an anti-Islamic conspiracy and aggression, what justification was there for taking military action in Kosovo? Is it not the case that many, though not all, of those who oppose what is being done now were vehemently opposed to military action in Kosovo? Had that action not been taken, Milosevic would still be in power.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has a good and a long memory, and he is entirely correct. I, too, remember sitting here when that military action was taken. I also remember not just that people said we should not take military action in Kosovo to protect the Muslim community there, but that when the action was taking place, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend Lord Robertson—then Secretary of State for Defence—were told repeatedly, day after day, that it would not work to dislodge Milosevic or to ensure the establishment of a different regime. That was what was said, and those who said it were wrong.
Mr. George Howarth: The high-level talks that took place yesterday between my right hon. Friend, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Chairman Arafat were welcome and significant. On a slightly different subject, however, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the role played by Afghanistan in the supply and distribution of heroin throughout the world in the recent past is covered in the documents that he intends to publish today, and whether it will figure—as I hope it will—in any long-term solution? Will it be recognised that we need to tackle this evil trade?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I shall deal more widely with the middle

1057
east peace process towards the end of my speech, but yesterday's series of meetings with President Arafat of the Palestinian Authority was important.
Yes, one of the many evils perpetrated by the Taliban regime is its sponsorship of the heroin trade, which accounts for 70 per cent. of all heroin produced in the world and for 90 per cent. of heroin on the streets here. It is a state-sponsored trade: the Taliban tax those who produce the heroin to make money for themselves.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: I will give way for the last time.
Mr. Campbell: When considering the question of jurisdiction, will the Foreign Secretary bear it in mind that after a terrorist atrocity had been committed over Lockerbie we insisted that, although the procedures and form of the court might have been changed, the case should be tried under Scottish jurisdiction?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an acute point, reinforcing the point that I was making, that democratic states have not only a right but a duty to try people for crimes committed on their territory against either their citizens or those who happen to he there, as with the victims from 60 or so other nations who just happened to be present in the World Trade Centre on the day of the atrocities on 11 September.
I know of no other set of choices lying between appeasement and military action. I have listened carefully to those who have suggested that there is some other way, and I understand why people are uncomfortable about military action—we all are—but I do not understand why, faced with the stark reality of either appeasing the Taliban and allowing them to continue to harbour terrorism, thus wholly thwarting our purpose, or taking military action, they keep dodging those choices.
The international community has not dodged the choices, any more than, happily, have the vast majority of people in this country. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal have all offered direct military support to the United States, in addition of course to that being provided by the United Kingdom.
The 15 countries of the European Union and the 19 members of NATO have all endorsed military action. As the House knows, historically, for the first time, NATO invoked article 5 of its charter. The United Nations Security Council, in an unanimous resolution on 12 September, expressed its readiness to take "all necessary steps" to defeat this terrorism. The action that is being taken is fully consistent with article 51 of the UN charter.
We are making every effort to avoid civilian casualties in the present conflict by rigorously targeting military and terrorist assets only. We cannot always avoid them, but we are making every effort to do so. There is no moral equivalence between us and our enemy: the terrorists seek to maximise civilian casualties; we seek to minimise them. They want to destroy society in Afghanistan; we want to rebuild it.
Lynne Jones: I remind my right hon. Friend that those who are directly responsible
1058
for the atrocities in the United States are all dead. Those who are being pursued are in other countries, and they are responsible for atrocities in other UN states—in Africa, for example—and are clearly intent on terrorising the whole world. Is it not therefore appropriate to set up an international court to try those people and bring them to justice?
Mr. Straw: I tried to deal with that point a moment ago. There is only one proposal for an international criminal court, and it is currently awaiting ratification. We cannot magic an international criminal court out of nothing. It will be established in due course. We are among the first to ratify it, but it will not have retrospective jurisdiction, so it could not cover the atrocities of 11 September.
I repeat that it is not only the right but the duty of democratic states to try people for crimes committed in their territory. Had the atrocities occurred in London, Edinburgh, Belfast or Cardiff, rather than the United States, the situation would be exactly the same. Some of those involved in the atrocities are now dead, but many of those who were more widely involved in conspiring and directing the operations are not. Had the crime occurred in this country, the fact that those people are currently in other territories would not in the least have prevented any United Kingdom jurisdiction from seeking their transfer to meet justice here.
Bin Laden and his associates have had every opportunity to give themselves up. They are not going to do so. This is a side issue, a red herring, a way of avoiding a stark political and moral choice that we have to take.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: In accepting the utter necessity of targeted military intervention at this time, may I ask my right hon. Friend to assure me that all partners in the coalition are giving every possible assistance to humanitarian agencies and efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and I can assure him on that point. I was just about the deal with that matter.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Foreign Secretary pointed out, rightly, that a broad range of countries in the coalition are in favour of the action and have offered support. However, there has been some sniping in the media that, so far, this has seemed like a largely American-based operation, with relatively minimal support from other countries; support has come from the UK only. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that at some time in the future, troops or military aid will be given by other countries so that the coalition looks like a coalition and not like a covert American action under the guise of an international coalition?
Mr. Straw: The coalition is an international coalition. We have provided active military involvement from the beginning of the operations. France is now providing military support, while other countries within NATO have offered it. The United States President is grateful for those offers and endorses the position of those countries as members of the military coalition. The extent to which those offers are accepted depends on military decisions

1059
made by the President of the United States. Where they have not been acted on so far, it is not out of a lack of appreciation of the generosity involved but because of the practical ramifications for the time being of the offer.
To pick up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), the people of Afghanistan have suffered for years from conflict and civil war, often fuelled by the outside world, which has not done nearly enough to help them. The nexus formed by the Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda organisation is only one of a long line of calamities to befall the people of that country. Bur it should be perfectly clear that we cannot give the people of Afghanistan all the help that they need until the influence of the terrorists is broken.
For years, the international community has tried to deal with the humanitarian crisis. For years, the Taliban regime has been obstructing these efforts. Even now, the Taliban regime is impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid and, astonishingly, trying to tax the food convoys that do get into Afghanistan. That is how much it cares for its people.
We are working with the other donors to relieve the suffering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has pledged a further £15 million, on top of the £25 million pledged since 11 September and the £32 million that we have committed to the Afghan crisis since 1997. But only a broad humanitarian coalition can feed and shelter the millions of Afghans who are homeless this winter and who, in most cases, were displaced from their homes long before 11 September.
The appointment of Lakhdar Brahimi, a distinguished international diplomat and statesman, to have overarching authority over these life-saving operations at the United Nations is the clearest possible signal of the importance that we attach to the humanitarian coalition. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I saw Ambassador Brahimi last week, we assured him of our wholehearted commitment to his task.
Relief is the most urgent task, but Ambassador Brahimi has also been given a political responsibility for the longer-term reconstruction of Afghanistan. This, too, is vital to our long-term security and to the fight against terrorism. Even before we embarked on this fight against terrorism, following the 11 September atrocities, Britain was taking a leading role in shaping international thinking on the long-term future of Afghanistan.
Before 11 September, Britain was working with other concerned members of the international community on a vision for the future at, for example, the conference that the UK organised at the request of the UN at Weston Park, a Foreign Office conference centre in Staffordshire, in July. The conference involved representatives from 20 of the nations with the greatest interest in the future of Afghanistan.
In the weeks since the atrocities in the United States, we have worked towards a shared vision with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the regional nations involved. Tomorrow, when I attend the European Union General Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, I shall share those ideas with my fellow Foreign Ministers—as well as in a speech in London next week. A senior Foreign Office official, Robert Cooper, has been appointed to develop our
1060
thinking on the future of Afghanistan and to work with the UN and our international partners on building a consensus on the way forward as the situation develops.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have a simple point to put to my right hon. Friend, who will be aware of the deep unease in the British population, who know that one does not on the whole deal with terrorism by mass intervention at state level. That action is important and, indeed, there has been no criticism of it as an initial response. The British people will support the intervention as long as it is short and clearly defensible and if they can see an end to it. Before British ground troops are committed to difficult terrain without a clear view of what they are expected to do and what responses they might meet, will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will come back to Parliament and straightforwardly explain to us exactly what the British people will have to accept?
Mr. Straw: The British people will support action that is clearly defensible, as they have done so far. I hope that nobody in the United Kingdom believes that the campaign will be short, because no one has suggested that it can be anything but difficult and long. As I said earlier, the campaign cannot he short.
On the issue of ground troops, I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff have as their principal concern the safety of our forces in all circumstances, recognising the risks that they take. We can never give details of the disposition of our forces in advance, for reasons that are clear and obvious, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that ever since the action started, the Government have made every endeavour to come to the House to be held to account for actions that have been taken and to take account of the views of the House, as is our duty. We will continue to do that throughout the campaign.
Clive Efford: The military action is bound to impede the delivery of aid to those people caught in the humanitarian crisis that is mounting in Afghanistan. How effective has the aid that we have attempted to deliver been? That issue will certainly have an impact on the coalition and how well it holds together, because everyone is concerned about the impact of the action on the people of Afghanistan.
Mr. Straw: I have already given figures for how much money has been made available by the United Kingdom, which has been matched by money from other sources. There is no problem finding the money to pay for aid to Afghanistan: the problem arises in getting the aid through. That problem has been caused by the Taliban and not principally by the military action. A regime that taxes trucks as they cross the border has no care for the hunger or deprivation of its inhabitants. We are working as hard as we can to get the humanitarian aid through, but as far as I know no approach has been made by the Taliban to provide safe routes for it. Most of the people who are currently starving were starving and in poverty and desperate need before 11 September, and many of them had fled across the border before that date.
Mr. David Heath: The Government have taken great care to ensure that the

1061
coalition does not appear to be the air force of the Northern Alliance, and that is right. In the event of the Taliban Government collapsing, can the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that the United Kingdom would not recognise an alternative Afghan Government that comprised principally Tajik and Uzbek elements and did not include the majority Pashtun population of Afghanistan, because that could not be stable?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my very next sentence.
Mr. Paul Marsden: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: No. I have to make progress.

The world agrees that any future regime in Afghanistan should be broad based and representative of the great diversity of the country's ethnic groupings. The domination of Mullah Omar's faction and the groupings that produced it cannot simply be replaced by another narrow faction, because no regime will be sustainable unless it commands broad consent among those whom it governs.
We have a common objective with the Afghan people—achieving a stable, durable, representative regime that is committed to eradicating terrorism and to enjoying mature relations with its neighbours, and with which we can work on the humanitarian crisis, the drugs trade, human rights and longer-term economic and social development.
In all that, the United Nations will play a key role. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying a warm tribute to the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and his organisation, as worthy winners of the Nobel peace prize. In Afghanistan, they will have yet another opportunity to demonstrate their value to the world. Only the United Nations has the global reach, the instruments and the expertise to help the Afghan people establish the conditions for successful government in Afghanistan. Our task is to make sure that it also has the resources and the political will to make that happen.
Thirty years of war and five years of not existing as a functioning state at all have left Afghanistan with few serviceable institutions. So, as I have said a number of times already this afternoon, we must be prepared for a lengthy commitment. However, no one should be in any doubt about our will to build a better world for the children of Afghanistan. We will not turn our backs on them again.
Ms Oona King: I support the action that the Government and the alliance have taken, but I am deeply concerned about how targeted our action is. Reports have just come in that a bomb has hit a Red Cross warehouse containing humanitarian supplies. Can my right hon. Friend give us any assurances that we will be better able to target the strikes that we are undertaking?
Mr. Straw: We all share my hon. Friend's concern about the need for accuracy in targeting. I can tell her, because I have witnessed the process, that a huge amount
1062
of care is being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, by those who advise him and provide us with legal advice, and by those who do the same in the United States, to ensure that the targeting is on military and terrorist assets and not on civilian targets. I emphasise that, so far as is possible, civilian casualties and deaths are being avoided. We have had to say from the outset—I am afraid to say that this is a dismal truth of war—that one cannot avoid civilian deaths and casualties altogether when military action is being undertaken, but happily the numbers so far have been low.
I, too, have heard the reports that an International Red Cross centre may have been hit. I understand from a further ICRC report that one person has been injured—the only report of injury or death so far—and that no food or medicine was contained in that depot.
Mr. Paul Marsden rose—
Ann Clwyd rose—
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I must make progress. I have to make two more sets of remarks before I allow others to speak.
The broader objective of our campaign is to eliminate terrorism as a force in international affairs. That involves strengthening domestic legislation and international co-operation against terrorists and their funds. It will involve sustained pressure on those states that aid and abet terrorism. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary gave the House details of their proposals yesterday.
United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 is the centrepiece of those global efforts. It represents a significant crackdown on those who fund and provide safe havens for terrorists. Britain, as chair of the Security Council committee that oversees the implementation of resolution 1373, will be playing a key role in its success. We are now supported by the broadest possible range of countries—east and west, north and south, Muslim and non-Muslim—in our endeavours.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the most widely representative of the organisations in the Arab and Muslim world, has, in a constructive and helpful statement, reaffirmed its condemnation of the terrorist attacks, and acknowledged the need to take action against the perpetrators.
As so many people of the Muslim faith have said, we are not at war with Islam. Nor are we seeking a clash of civilisations. Islam is part of our civilisation, and Muslims are part of our communities, and a part of what was attacked on 11 September.
Bin Laden seeks to turn the Islamic world against the west. We are, as the whole world is, determined not to let him succeed. The terrorists are the enemies of Islam, just as they are the enemies of everyone everywhere else.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: I apologise for not doing so, but I must make progress.

1063
We all suffer from the threat of terrorism, and we all have an interest in removing it. The Government and people of Pakistan recognise this overwhelmingly. I praise their courage, and the courage of President Musharraf, in taking a firm stand against terror and supporting this military action.
To pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), we have to resolve the conflicts that terrorists exploit for their own ends. At a time when the rest of the world is coming together in the fight against terrorism, the fighting has, sadly, continued in parts of the middle east. Our efforts to secure a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement in that region are therefore more important than ever.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I am sorry, I must make progress.
Those efforts were important before 11 September as well. The Mitchell plan has been on the table for months. Resolving the middle east peace process has been a top priority for this country, the United States and the European Union since long before that.
Yesterday the Prime Minister and I discussed the way forward with President Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through a political process that implements "land for peace", delivers security for Israel within recognised borders, brings an end to occupation and leads to a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state. It is time the political will existed on both sides to turn that into a reality, and it is time the men of violence had the wisdom to recognise that a concession which helps secure a lasting peace for the children of the region is not a concession at all but an immense gain.
We all want peace, but sometimes there can be no peace until we have fought for it. I understand—indeed, I share—the fears that military action evokes, but the action that we are taking with our allies is designed to make the world safer, not more dangerous. By far the greater danger would lie in leaving the threat of terrorism unchallenged.
Military action is essential to avert terrorist attacks, but it is not the only part of the fight against terrorism. Terrorism thrives best where conflict, poverty, racism and exploitation have brought about the collapse of government and of civil society. The surest way of defeating these evils is to build a more inclusive world, where the cries of the children of Afghanistan, of Sierra Leone, of Kosovo and of the middle east do not go unheard.
Because it is inspired by this vision, the coalition today is stronger and more focused than ever. It has united countries which once found it hard to see any community of interest.
We are neither deterred nor dismayed by the continuing threat of the terrorists, because we know that we are building a better, safer world, where freedom from fear may at last become a reality for all
4.19 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: I very much welcome today's debate and I thank the Foreign Secretary for his speech. Once again, in these rather strange circumstances, I find myself in agreement with most of it.
1064
It is more than a week since the House last had the chance to consider and deliberate on the events in Afghanistan and their impact on, and implications for, the wider international community. In the past nine days, a large amount of explosive has been dropped on specific targets in Afghanistan. We are told that it has achieved a significant "degrading" of the terrorist facilities of al-Qaeda and of the Taliban Government and their internal communications.
The targeted softening up of the capabilities of the terrorists and their sponsors must be the first phase of the fight to bring them to book. Today, we are told—perhaps we will be told more later—that the airborne assault has become even more targeted.
The Foreign Secretary has set out the reasons behind the present offensive, which we support, but in reporting events there is an innate danger against which we must guard. Constant televised images of smart bombs and pinpoint destruction can give the impression of some distant and disassociated war game in which human life and limb are not involved. Dramatic pictures of bombed ruins claimed by the Taliban to be scenes of mass civilian casualties conversely convey the appearance of indiscriminate attacks on innocent victims.
As so often at times of conflict, the reality lies somewhere in between. It is important that Members deal with the realities and not the distorted images. The grim but inevitable realities and the consequences of any military conflict are that people will get hurt. An even grimmer but no less avoidable reality is that civilian casualties and deaths will occur, however intense the efforts to avoid them. In the attacks of the past week, every attempt has been made to avoid innocent or non-military victims but, as so often is the case in battle, it does not always work. Sometimes when we say that, however, we are accused of callousness or cynicism.
We must never diminish the value or importance of any innocent life lost or any innocent victim injured. We must ensure that everything viable is done to avoid that. At the same time, we must never pretend that such tragic events can be completely prevented. We must always feel enormous grief at civilian casualties and deaths, but at the same time we cannot be deterred from doing what is right. As the Secretary of State pointed out today, the objectives are clear and they justify what is happening.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned our armed forces, and we join in the tributes that he paid to them. They and their families are very much in our thoughts and prayers at this time.
Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman asserts that the objectives of bombing are so clear. Could the House hear from him exactly what they are?
Mr. Ancram: I am coming to that part of my speech, so I will deal with that matter directly if the hon. Gentleman will allow me a moment.
It is important that every time we debate these issues we remind ourselves of the objectives. I have only just seen the document that the Foreign Secretary laid in the Library. I regret that the House did not get earlier sight of it, as it might have informed this debate. In my brief and hurried reading I discovered that it outlines the objectives at greater length than I intended to do on behalf of the Conservative party.

1065
I believe that the objectives are, first, to bring Osama bin Laden to justice and to destroy his al-Qaeda organisation. The second is the longer term but equally essential eradication of international terrorism and the very real threats implicit in it. The third is to enable the people of Afghanistan to regain their rights and to live in peace, not least by a determined effort to free them from the threat of famine that confronts so many of them.
The Secretary of State will tell me if those three objectives are in line with those in his document. According to my reading, I believe that he would agree with them.
Mr. Straw indicated assent.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for that reaffirmation.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, achievement of the objectives will be long and hard. Against continuous propaganda efforts to the contrary, we must constantly reassert that this is not a conflict against people or religions: it is a war against terrorism.
To underline that fact, we must demonstrate that it is not a geographically limited war. We will be robust wherever there is clear or incontrovertible evidence of terrorism or of the sponsorship or sheltering of terrorism. We must be clear that we will be as robust against home-grown terrorism as we will be against terrorism that occurs overseas. It is a complex picture, in which the present military action is essential but is at the same time only one part. Bombing is for the moment crucial; however, in the wider picture it is but the first phase. We need to understand and explore the whole picture.
We support wholeheartedly the Government's efforts to maintain the remarkable international coalition that now supports the fight against terrorism. We have to admire the coming together of powers that historically have regarded each other with at best suspicion and at worst open hostility. How many of us would have thought that in our lifetimes we would see a coalition of interest between Europe, the United States, Russia and China? Yet that is what we have today, and it shows the extraordinary binding effect that the war against terrorism is creating within the international community. Ironically, the suicide pilots who flew those planes into the World Trade Centre, hoping to blow the world apart, have succeeded, uniquely, in bringing it together.
It is important, too, that we understand the sensitivities that challenge that coalition, especially in certain Arab states and in Pakistan and India. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the courage and resolution of General Musharraf in Pakistan, who, despite pressures, has backed the fight against terrorism and who only today has again reaffirmed his country's position as part of the flexible coalition against it.
Sometimes in the past Pakistan has seen our friendship as somewhat short lived. This time, we must show that it is more firmly based, and that we can provide the aid that is so badly needed to help in certain parts of that country.
We must all hear with apprehension news of the renewed conflict in Kashmir. In calling for restraint at this most tense time, we must also be able to reassure our Indian friends that we are no less committed to the fight
1066
against the terrorism from which their democracy suffers than we are against the same evil phenomenon everywhere else. Their losses at Srinagar remain fresh in our memories today.
The stability of the coalition, particularly among the Arab states, has inevitably brought the middle east on to centre stage. I had the opportunity on Sunday night—as did the Foreign Secretary yesterday—of meeting Mr. Arafat. I had the chance to talk privately to him and our conservation gave me some cautious cause for hope. We do not need reminding of the crucial role that conflict in the middle east plays in determining the stability of the Arab world as a whole and of the damage to all interests that instability or conflict can cause.
In the current climate, Israelis and Palestinians know, as do we all, that instability in the region can only help the cause of bin Laden. He will seek to provoke instability, either directly or vicariously, and he is undoubtedly seeking to do so. We know that provocation is never easy to resist, particularly in the middle east, but we ask that it is resisted now because to do otherwise is indirectly to do bin Laden's work.
I remember with admiration the Israeli restraint in 1991. We know how hard it was then. They were our friends then and they remain our friends, and we ask for similar restraint now.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that broadcasters were summoned to Downing street yesterday to obtain a statement from the Prime Minister's spokesman as to what policy they were to take on the propaganda war, especially on bin Laden's statements and those of al-Qaeda broadcast on the Arab station? Would it not be appropriate for No. 10 to share with the House the advice that was given to broadcasters?
Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I hope that, in the winding-up speeches, we may hear some more about the advice given to broadcasters. I have some experience of trying to control broadcasts from my time in Northern Ireland: it does not work. In the age of the internet and satellite television, the efficacy of such control is questionable. I merely say, in a generous spirit, that attempts to do anything about it may prove futile.
We look with hope for a resumption of the dialogue that alone can bring a resolution to the 50-year-old problem of the middle east. With good will at this time, progress can be made, but it has to be a free dialogue, not one brought about by threat or coercion. History teaches us that settlements arrived at in the shadow of war can create problems further down the line. Nor would it be right for progress to be brought about because of the threat of terrorism. In this instance, that would encourage the terrorists. Any settlement must, in the end, be balanced, freely reached and genuinely agreed if it is to have a chance of surviving.
In turn, that must mean that any resumption of the middle east peace process, which will undoubtedly help to maintain the coalition, should be based not on new propositions formulated since 11 September but on areas of agreement previously reached. I believe that revisiting the territory of the inclusive talks at Tabah last January might produce a valuable and useful start.
We should be cautious of the temptation to make bold propositions. Our role must be to encourage both sides to get back around the table and to refrain from conflict.

1067
We could also seek to create a more favourable climate for stability in the area by helping to reverse the economic downturn that the current problems have caused. For example, we could have a useful role to play in encouraging the building of further commercial interests between Israel and her Palestinian neighbours. I should be interested to know whether the Government have considered what encouragement we can give to gas gathering projects off Israel and Gaza, which provide a useful opportunity.
Alongside the maintenance of the coalition and the capture of bin Laden, the objective of seeking stability in Afghanistan must be in the broader picture. It has been ravaged by 20 years of civil and external war. Its people, as we have heard, have been brutalised by the current Taliban regime. Human rights have been jettisoned and untold misery has been caused to the Afghan people. It must now be a clear objective to see the end of the evil Taliban regime. It must equally be an objective to see them replaced by a Government who genuinely represent the whole of Afghanistan and who will be resolute in ensuring that Afghanistan will never again be used as a haven for international terrorism. It must also be an objective finally to bring an end to the civil war in Afghanistan, which has been responsible for so many of the current problems, including the presence of international terrorism there.
A fresh Government cannot just represent one tribal faction against the interests of the rest; they need to represent them all. I welcome the restraint being shown by the Northern Alliance in respect of the taking of Kabul. As Tajiks, most of those in the alliance would never be acceptable on their own to the majority of Afghans. I hope that, in their current military offensive against Mazar-i-Sharif, they will be able to create a bridge to allow further supplies of much-needed food to reach the starving refugees and displaced people in the area—they would win many friends in doing so. The replacement for the Taliban must be broad based. It should be clearly representative of the main strands of interest in Afghanistan. I hope that it would also clearly represent women in Afghanistan, especially after the depredations suffered by Afghan women in these last terrible years.
It is right for us to set out those objectives, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary would agree that it would be wrong for the west, or indeed any external country, to seek to impose a Government on Afghanistan. History shows that that would be counter-productive, but we can help to encourage the political environment in which such a representative Government can not only come into being but flourish. We can encourage the widest consultation in Afghanistan, from which such a Government can emerge. The best conduit for achieving that may be the United Nations.
I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence would tell the House what discussions, if any, are currently taking place with the UN, specifically on the setting up of consultations from which a representative Government can emerge, and whether they have had any discussions with Lakhdar Brahimi about that matter.
Mr. Straw: As I told the House, the Prime Minister and I saw Lakhdar Brahimi last week. In fact, London was the first stop in his international discussions because of the work we in the United Kingdom had done before
1068
11 September in seeking an agenda for the future Afghanistan. The answer is, yes, we did discuss the matters that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, and those discussions continue. I am very happy to ensure that he and the other representatives of the other political parties in the House are properly briefed about those discussions.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would very much welcome that briefing, and I look forward to taking advantage of it.
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would agree that there is an urgency in this regard. The worst and most dangerous alternative to the Taliban would be a vacuum of power. If the Taliban were in the near future either to split or to implode—both of which I am told are perfectly possible—it is vital that the vacuum is not filled by another faction or Government who will merely reignite civil war, or by a Government beholden to international terrorism. Any stable alternative must share our commitment to the removal of bin Laden and al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. If that joint intent were to become decoupled, our objective of removing bin Laden could become much more difficult and hazardous.
There is also the urgency of the onset of winter. Although I am given to understand that the problems of passage and communication are at their worst in about February, time is not on our side, especially in relation to the humanitarian element, which is the desperate part of the picture. Many of the starving in Afghanistan are in the north and west—areas that will be especially affected by winter.
We have made it clear that the humanitarian crisis is every bit as important as the terrorist threat within Afghanistan. Our commitment, along with that of our allies and the coalition as a whole, to the defeat of terrorism must be matched by a similar commitment to meet and resolve the unfolding human disaster in a real and effective way. If our fight against terrorism is in the cause of freedom and peace, so must be our fight against the scourge of starvation that faces millions within Afghanistan and beyond its borders.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that a massive humanitarian response will be necessary to avert the growing humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan. Although we welcome all the money that the Government have allocated to deal with the crisis, we have to question whether the extent of the aid provided will be sufficient to save those desperate people from disaster.
On the first night of the bombing, United States planes dropped 37,000 rations on Afghanistan. Leaving aside the enormous practical difficulties that bedevil air drops, how can 37,000 rations—each one enough for one person for one day—have an impact on a country where 7.5 million are dependent on food aid each day? We currently manage to get 500 metric tonnes of food into Afghanistan every day in food convoys. The Secretary of State for International Development said that we have to try to double that amount, but even if we were to triple it we would still be 10,000 metric tonnes short every month of the 55,000 tonnes of food that the World Food Programme says is necessary to feed the hungry in Afghanistan.
Oxfam has called the current food aid levels a "drop in the ocean". I want the Government to assure me that every effort will be made to provide adequate provision for

1069
more than 7 million hungry Afghans before winter sets in. That is the greatest challenge facing the coalition. It is the measure of our humanity in the face of the inhumanity of terrorism.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says and entirely agree with him. Does he therefore support the request by Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, for a pause in the bombing to allow substantial aid to go into Afghanistan before the winter?
Mr. Ancram: I fear that the hon. Lady is not facing up to the problem that any pause in the bombing would allow the terrorists and the Taliban to regroup from where they have been dispersed to and to rebuild the facilities that have been destroyed. It would prolong and worsen the campaign that is being waged. I say that in all seriousness. We have to understand that that is a fact, and the humanitarian crisis must be dealt with in the light of it.
Dr. Tonge rose—
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Dr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mary Robinson has retracted the reports that were erroneously issued in which she requested a pause in the bombing? She hoped that aid could be delivered more efficiently and in a way that was more compatible with the necessary campaign.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. Mary Robinson, too, must have seen the dangers of calling for a pause in the middle of a campaign and the effects that that can have on prolonging it.
Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quickest way of enabling a pause in the bombing is for the Taliban to hand over bin Laden? We should never lose sight of the fact that the first United Nations resolution calling on the Taliban to hand over bin Laden was way back in October 1999, following the bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. There is a great danger of our becoming somewhat morally confused on the issue. All the injuries and difficulties of feeding people in Afghanistan have been caused by the Taliban's refusal to comply with their commitments and obligations under the UN charter.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that; he is absolutely right to do so. I reiterate what the Foreign Secretary said: many of the problems in delivering aid are being caused by the deliberate activities of the Taliban. In the end, it will be the removal of the Taliban Government in Afghanistan that will unlock and open many of the doors that we face in that regard. However, we must be certain that enough is being done. I do not have that certainty at this time, and would welcome the Government's firmest assurances on the matter.
Dr. Tonge: The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again and in his calls for the Government to
1070
increase aid to Afghanistan, but if we are not to stop the bombing, even temporarily, how does he suggest we get that aid into the country?
Mr. Ancram: I made one suggestion about the north of Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance is opening an offensive against Mazar-i-Sharif. If that is successful, it will, I hope, enable trade routes to be opened for aid to enter that part of Afghanistan. That is another example of how in the end the issue can be resolved only by removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Once that is done, the problems that we currently face will be very much reduced.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as stepping up our aid programme to refugees in Afghanistan, it is equally important to step up the aid to Afghans who are already in Pakistan? Some of the surroundings in which they find themselves in the camps are woeful to say the least, and they have lived like that for many years. We could do a lot worse than to ensure that we better look after the Afghan people—for obvious reasons, in Pakistan as well.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for International Development has made that point on many occasions and, indeed, asked for assurances of adequate and proper standards in the camps. We are all concerned to hear reports that that may not be so, and obviously we want to continue to put pressure on the authorities in Pakistan to ensure that the problem is met. When I talked about Pakistan earlier, I hope that I indicated that I thought it was proper that aid was made available in order to help in areas where such problems occur.
The coalition must be sustained in its task. That task is not without risk. As the Foreign Secretary said, we must be on our guard. At the end of the day, terror is simply about creating fear. Terrorists succeed when people do what they would not normally do because of terror. We must never allow terror to divert us from the undertaking on which we are engaged, or to allow it to distract us from our normal ways of life. No fight can be undertaken without risk. We know the risks, and in light of them we have given our full backing to the Government and the United States of America. So long as their determination to eradicate international terrorism remains undiminished, and so long as their commitment to relieve the humanitarian crisis remains to the fore, we will continue to back them. What is being done is right. I once again offer the Government our support.
4.44 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: The Government, in partnership with other coalition countries, face taking the most grave decisions that any British Government have faced on the international front for a very long time. The House of Commons will have to face up to supporting or not supporting the decisions that the Government make independently or with other countries. That is evidenced by the fact that, for the first time in the institution's 40 years of existence, NATO has invoked article 5: NATO countries have for the first time said that they will come to the aid of another NATO country that has been attacked.

1071
I would find it difficult to say anything that might endanger a strategy that will ensure our future security or that is dependent on the actions of our troops. Even if I thought that I was right, I would be extremely wary of saying anything that might endanger troops who were carrying out the desires of the Government and of Parliament. I believe in proportionate action; I also believe that we must ensure that any action we take is effective; however, I do not believe that we Members of Parliament should remain mute or refrain from making observations that we believe are germane to the achievement of international security and stability, or that address the issue of international terrorism.
I shall focus first on current military actions, then offer some observations on some options that I believe the international coalition is considering taking in future. I understand why military strikes are necessary if a course of action using ground troops is to be attempted in future. We cannot endanger helicopters, aeroplanes or people that might be involved in some future project, so perhaps some military installations in Afghanistan should be taken out by military action. Where a need to do that can be demonstrated—I know that Ministers are extremely anxious to ensure that it can—I have no reservations about such action. If we decide that the right strategy is to intervene on the ground in Afghanistan, we must do all that we can to make it as safe as possible for whoever represents our interests.
Although I understand the need to take military action, I am concerned about some of the actions that television and newspaper reports reveal have been taken. When I see pictures of an airfield in Afghanistan where 14 Russian Mig fighters are lined up on the runway with a civilian aeroplane at the end of the runway presenting a target for our military action, I begin to think that the Taliban, for some reason, want us to carry out military strikes.
I know only a little about such matters, but no military commander in his right senses who was in so serious a position would line up his fighting capacity on an airfield, ready to be attacked by an enemy that had already declared its intention to attack. Any strategist would disperse those aeroplanes by any means possible—even hide them under haystacks—rather than line them up at an aerodrome. If a force had 10,000 Mig fighters, it might have nowhere else to put some of them and he forced to put them on that runway, but no one who had only a limited number of fighters would line them up in that way. That scene suggests to me that either those fighters were inoperable and useless, or that they were of some use but for political reasons the Taliban wanted television screens around the world to show their destruction.
Mr. Paul Marsden: Is my hon. Friend aware that some military analysts have identified some of those aeroplanes as having been around since 1988? They are of no use at all, so when we declare that they are wonderful targets that we have managed to blow up, we miss the whole point. In fact, we are dropping bombs and blowing up kids, and it should stop now.
Mr. Henderson: I hear my hon. Friend. I have explained my position; I am not against military action, but it should be effective. Initially, a military purpose should be pursued consistent with a political purpose. Questions are now being asked. According to reports in
1072
The New York Times, the American Defence Secretary himself has been crying out for another strategy that would develop the coalition action from the form it has taken over the past nine or 10 days into something different. He has expressed what many of us are expressing; we want some military action, but it must have a purpose. If that purpose is achieved, the action should stop. I know that it is difficult for Ministers to respond on such an issue, but the public are asking those questions, so it is right for Parliament to debate the matter. Ministers must demonstrate that the action is necessary and is leading to something else.
Mr. Marsha Singh: My hon. Friend spoke about the need for action to be precise and when it should stop. Does he accept that the House has heard about the coalition and how it is supported by the Muslim world? In reality, popular Muslim sentiment throughout this country and the world is against the bombing. The longer that it continues, the more unstable certain regimes in the world and our own British Muslim population will become. Incidentally, the British Muslim population should be highly praised because the majority has remained calm, although extremely perturbed. However, the longer the action goes on, especially the bombing, the more dangerous the world situation gets, especially in Muslim countries.
Mr. Henderson: I hear my hon. Friend and agree with a lot of what he said. I shall come on to that and shall try to keep my remarks as short as possible.
If we had a dilemma in deciding our initial action, we have a critical dilemma in trying to decide where we go from here. Essentially, there are two options. The coalition can say that there is only one way to deal with the problem; continue the bombing, perhaps extend it to other countries, send in ground troops, root out the Taliban regime and, if necessary, undertake a military campaign to achieve that. Military experts would recognise that that would take many months, if not years.
To try to ensure any degree of safety for our troops, we may estimate that we have to outnumber the other troops by a ratio of three or four to one, although military strategists will argue about the precise numbers. If the Taliban have 100,000 people prepared to fight, we need 400,000. If they have 200,000, we need 800,000; everyone can do their own calculations. If we went down that road, we would have to be prepared to face up to the issues raised by that strategy and their implications for public opinion in this country, Muslim opinion worldwide and the Governments and people of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Malaysia. If we took that route, it could lead to the huge consequence of our eventually creating a 21st century Vietnam.
It is all very well removing the Taliban Government under that strategy. What would be the next step? How would another Government be created in Afghanistan, and where would they come from? How would they establish any kind of law and order? If the United Nations had to establish a protectorate—that is an attractive idea—how would it be kept in power? Who would provide law and order and external security?
Those are difficult questions and reservations have already been expressed about handing over a position to the Northern Alliance to allow it to try to fill the vacuum. That would be an unacceptable solution.

1073
The problem is that if one enters the arena on the basis of backing forces that begin to struggle or are removed from power, one has a choice: to desert them and allow further anarchy, or to be trapped for a very long time, as the Americans were in Vietnam, before it is possible to extract military force and hand over power to a civilian Government. There is a genuine danger of such circumstances arising in Afghanistan.
The House may have gathered that I have grave doubts about a so-called all-out ground war. Even if bin Laden were apprehended and brought to justice by such an approach, would not the downside—the effect on the rest of the Muslim world—outweigh the benefits? Such an outcome might even encourage new bin Ladens to appear, day in, day out, not only elsewhere, but here in Britain. Serious questions must be asked about such an approach. I know that debates are occurring in the United States and inside the Government. I hope that the Government, who recognise the dangers, will acknowledge that there are hon. Members who are not afraid of taking military action or supporting a long-term campaign, but who would back them in holding such discussions. That applies internally, in relation to the British Cabinet, and externally, in terms of dealing with coalition partners.
We are all equally outraged about the atrocities that occurred in New York. The realistic option is to explain to the public that the campaign against terrorism cannot be waged in the short term or by ordering massive troop incursions. People here and elsewhere will ask why, if it is so easy, we have not solved the problem in Northern Ireland.
We must take a much longer-term view and be prepared to use stealth. The time to strike is when the terrorist is not awaiting action and does not expect to be apprehended and brought to justice, or eliminated if such an outcome is not possible. We would, however, have to prepare public opinion for the adoption of such an approach and tell people not to expect quick results. If we are extremely lucky, we may achieve such results with bin Laden, but in the light of the probabilities that are suggested by intelligence information, that seems unlikely. We should not be saying that the problem can be dealt with quickly. Our actions must be sustained for a long period and we must carry with us international and domestic opinion, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out.
4.58 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) was right to draw our attention to the potential pitfalls of a massive ground operation of the sort that he described. The fairly recent experience of the Soviet Union would lend corroboration to the points that he made. I do not understand, however, that such an operation is being contemplated by Her Majesty's Government. I believe that they would be equally seized of precisely those elements of such an operation that would be so difficult and dangerous to accomplish.
I found a great deal with which to agree in the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary. Despite our directly relevant and recent experience in the Gulf war and Bosnia and Kosovo, there
1074
are still some people—I suspect that their number is decreasing in the House—who cling to those two enduring myths that apply to modern military action, especially when it is taken from the air: that it guarantees the achievement of quick results, and that it can be executed without civilian casualties.
If the mood of the House has been sombre in the past, today it seems that it needs to be sober. As has been made clear in previous contributions, we are concerned not so much with the rhetoric of our outrage—or, indeed, the eloquence of our sorrow—but with the reason that is necessary for coping with the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
The campaign is only nine days old, but its success will never be measured by conventional means—the number of missions flown or targets struck—because we are not dealing with a conventional enemy. There will be no conventional surrender, and it may be long after the campaign before we know the point at which a successful and terminal blow was struck. We must curb our impatience and hope that our example will curb that of the laptop generals of Fleet street.
We must recognise our moral obligation to provide maximum humanitarian assistance. Our moral authority for military action will be severely undermined if we do not fulfil our moral obligation to provide humanitarian relief. I have heard those who argue for a pause in the bombing. Whether Mary Robinson said one thing or another is not relevant; the fact that the issue was raised means that we should apply our minds to it.
If the bombing stopped, I do not believe that the Taliban would open all the entrances to Afghanistan, wave the aid through and say, "This is the support and assistance of an international community, fulfilling its humanitarian obligations under the auspices of the United Nations." I wish I could he confident that that would happen, leaving aside the propaganda advantage that would be taken of a pause and the question whether pausing would prejudice the overall military objectives.
There is no moral equivalence between the operations against the Taliban and the events of 11 September. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise. Unintended civilian casualties in Afghanistan do not alter the fact that the events of 11 September were conceived in cold blood, planned with skill and executed with deliberation and no regard for the consequences. By contrast, minimising civilian casualties in Afghanistan is a specific operational requirement of the current military action.
It is an unpalatable fact that any military action, however targeted and proportionate to need, runs the risk of civilian casualties. We have been seduced too often by videos; no bomb, however smart, is infallible. I do not want any civilian to die or be injured in Afghanistan, just as I did not want thousands to die in New York or Washington. However, it is not possible to guarantee that none will.
We must also bear it in mind that military action is not an end in itself, but a means of achieving political objectives. Mine are couched in slightly different language from those of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or those with which the Prime Minister began his statement 10 days ago. They are: bring Osama bin Laden to justice; fracture the terrorist network over which he presides; try to remove the threat of terrorism wherever we find it in the world, and allow the people of Afghanistan a Government of their choosing.

1075
I do not believe that the final objective needs to await the achievement of others. As the shadow Foreign Secretary said, it is essential to avoid a political vacuum when the Taliban fall; otherwise, the Northern Alliance may replace an odious regime with one that many people in Afghanistan would find equally distasteful. We should therefore identify a clear role for the United Nations in rebuilding the nation. There is no better time to do it than, as the Foreign Secretary reminded us, in the week when Kofi Annan and his organisation have been awarded the Nobel prize.
We should make it clear that our purpose is to install a Government chosen by the people, not Washington or any other capital. If we do that, we shall assist in maintaining the coalition to which hon. Members have already referred. We should not underestimate its fragility. That is why I applaud the Prime Minister's initiative in relation to the middle east, because it is important in itself—I have argued that case in the House on many occasions—but also because of it influence on the coalition.
It is clear that the events of 11 September were not designed to achieve a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. The objective was to loosen, or even remove, United States military and political support for the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, to try to make their replacement by a more fundamentalist regime much easier. The fate of those poor Palestinians in the Shatila camp in Beirut, which many Members have seen, is no concern of those who turned aircraft into flying bombs and flew them into buildings in the United States.
Even if there had been a peaceful settlement in the middle east, the attacks would almost certainly have taken place, and even if there were a settlement tomorrow, it would not prevent other such attacks. The lack of a settlement, however, is an important factor in Arab capitals throughout the middle east, which we ignore at our peril. It is an issue not just among Governments but, perhaps more particularly, in the streets, where there is sincere—sometimes bordering on the hysterical—support for the Palestinian cause.
Let me suggest a formula: we must make progress on the Palestinian issue, and be seen to do so. Action, not articles, will be more persuasive. In doing so, we must help as far as we can to check the fervour of support in the streets. That in turn will assist the Governments and Arab capitals to give more support to our coalition; but it must be based on Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries, free from threats and acts of force.
If those last few words sound familiar, they will sound familiar to those who have most recently read resolution 242 of the United Nations Security Council, of 22 November 1967. Some 34 years hater, it could be argued that they are even more relevant today.
It appears from his meetings with the shadow Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—and, indeed, from the meetings that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats and I had with him—that President Arafat clearly recognises that there is an opportunity, perhaps a better opportunity than there has been for some time. He must have been encouraged by the recognition in Washington that the Palestinians must have justice and, as the Prime Minister put it, a viable Palestinian state. A certain ironical smile must have crossed the face of the Foreign Secretary when
1076
he heard the Prime Minister use that language: he may have thought that his immediate experience of the middle east had been, if not brushed away, certainly pushed to one side.
Let me remind the House of what I sometimes call the theory of raised expectations. If we do say that there is a better opportunity—if we do say that there is a demand, a requirement, a necessity for something to be done about the middle east peace process, even if only for the pragmatic purpose of securing the coalition, and then fail to do anything about it: if we raise expectations and then dash them—the position will be very much worse afterwards than it was before.
Finally, let me say something about the widening of military action. The last time we debated this issue, I said that I thought there was quite a bit of loose talk, particularly about Iraq. I think we would be well advised to get the military action in which we are currently engaged right, before talking about extending it to other countries. We should also understand—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) perhaps knows this better than any other Member—that there is great sympathy throughout the middle east not for Saddam Hussein but for the people of Iraq, given their privations and suffering over the last 12 years. Any extension of military action against Iraq without clear and specific evidence would, in my judgment, rupture the coalition.
Equally alarming is the possibility that Saddam Hussein, repeating the provocations of the Gulf war, when he targeted Israel with missiles, would seek to draw Israel into conflict. The most sanguine of us must have some apprehension at even the remote possibility of a missile exchange between a nuclear power, Israel, and a regime hellbent on achieving capability in weapons of mass destruction, as Iraq is.
There is a further compelling reason against an extension of military action without clear and unequivocal evidence: it is precisely what bin Laden wants. If we turn this into a conflict between Christian and Islamic countries, we play precisely into his hands. We could not hand him a better propaganda weapon.
These are difficult and even dangerous days, requiring cool heads and determination. Those qualities are at a premium. Because we recognise them in the Government, they have our support.
5.11 pm
Linda Perham: On 11 September, I was in my office in Portcullis House when my husband rang me to say that his head of department had just called him out of his classroom to ask him in which city in the United States our 20-year-old daughter was studying, because he had heard that two planes had flown into the World Trade Centre and that the Pentagon had been hit. I remember saying to him, "Well, of course, she's on the west coast, so she's not affected", and then putting the phone down, thinking that the whole thing was completely unbelievable. Then someone came into the office and said, "Put on the television—this thing is really happening." That shows my reaction of disbelief.
My other daughter is 22, the same age as the youngest British victim of the atrocities, Vincent Wells, born on 17 September 1978. I went to his memorial service last Sunday, which 600 people attended. He worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the top floor of the World Trade

1077
Centre north tower, so he had absolutely no chance of getting away. He was a football fan who both played and watched, and he was one of three people with Redbridge connections in the World Trade Centre that day.
Michael Cunningham, who was 39 and a former pupil of the same Catholic school as Vincent Wells, was working for Eurobrokers on the 84th floor of the south tower. He was the father of a three-week-old baby and had just returned a couple of weeks before to work in New York again.
Richard Duncan, who was 54, was the father of a son of 19 and a daughter of 14. He was a former local hockey and cricket player who had celebrated his silver wedding anniversary a month before the tragedy. He was working for the US firm Aon on the 99th floor of the south tower.
My local community is mourning those three hard-working and enterprising men, ranging in age from my daughter's age to my own. They were part of an area of London that has, in general, seen a peaceful move to a multicultural community over the years. My constituency has one of the largest Jewish populations in western Europe, but also now has an increasing number of people of other faiths and none, from south Asia, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as people from Greece, Turkey, China and many other countries.
On 12 September, on the advice of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, my local borough commander called a meeting of groups representing the local community, the council, Redbridge Refugee Forum, Redbridge Racial Equality Council, the Jewish Community Trust, the League of British Muslims and others. Not long after that, a statement was issued bearing the names of many organisations and individuals, including all four borough Members of Parliament—including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)—local council leaders and many organisations. The statement read:
"We, the representatives and leaders of different political, ethnic and religious groups in the London borough of Redbridge, are united in our condemnation of the murder and mayhem inflicted on human beings in America. We join together to extend our sincere condolences to those who are suffering as a result of the terrible events inflicted on them during Tuesday, September 11 2001.
In our borough, people from many diverse communities live side by side in a way which is largely harmonious and secure. Although differences of opinion are freely expressed, mutual respect and a will to live peacefully side by side creates a local way of life that we can all be proud of.
Times as testing as these unite people in ways which may not have been possible before. We have the opportunity to see each other differently. It is our hope that the enormity of this crisis leads to a legacy of peace for the future."
These are testing times indeed, and there are opportunities to unite. I join my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in paying tribute to our armed forces. This time last year, I—along with the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire)—was on HMS Cumberland in the Arabian sea, travelling from Bahrain to Kuwait. I would recommend that experience to other hon. Members, who would learn what our armed forces have to go through and the training that they receive.
I want to emphasise the importance of talking as well as acting in such a crisis. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Colin Powell and others have gone around the
1078
world building alliances and maintaining the international coalition against terrorism and for humanitarian support for Afghanistan and other poor countries in the world.
For my sins, when I entered this House I quickly became involved with groups seeking settlements in Cyprus and the middle east and I visited Cyprus and Israel. Those who took part in the delegations talked to all sorts of people on different sides of communities and from different political parties, as well as human rights workers and academics. When we went to Israel in 1998, we were told that there was an opportunity to meet Yasser Arafat. Before and after we met him, there were those who wondered whether the Labour Friends of Israel group should meet Yasser Arafat. However, we felt that it was important to talk to him yesterday—as other right hon. and hon. Members have done during his visit—to get another side of the argument. We cannot rely on hearing only one side.
Talking and acting together to tackle international terrorism and to fight world poverty is the best thing that could be done. Some good may come out of those dreadful acts if the global community can join together to confront those twin evils. If so, the twin towers will not have been vaporised in vain and our three local lost sons will have a worthy memorial.
5.19 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), who has made a valuable point that sometimes escapes attention—what happened on 11 September was not just an attack on America and Americans; we could not find another two buildings in the world that contained a greater variety of people of different nationalities, faiths and backgrounds. It remains the case that more Britons died in that attack than have died in any single terrorist attack on mainland Britain. When we say that the attack was not just on America but on us all, it is a literal truth, and the hon. Lady did a service to the House by reminding us of that.
It is right that a debate on a matter of such gravity should not follow a pattern of slavish adherence to a consensus viewpoint. That would be a negation of the democracy and values for which we are fighting. It is proper and desirable that Members of Parliament should use the opportunity of such a debate to question whether military action is necessary, whether it is proportionate and whether it is likely to be effective. We should not suggest that those who ask such questions should be condemned as unpatriotic or cowardly, because that would be wrong. We should have a proper debate, because that is what a democracy stands for. It is proper to question the propriety of what our Government and others, especially that of the United States, have embarked upon.
On the question whether the military action is necessary, several hon. Members have suggested that it is not. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whom I greatly respect, is not in her place, because she suggested that people could tolerate short-term action but that they would not have an appetite for longer-term action. She compared the current action with what was done in Kosovo some two years ago. With respect, that is a false comparison. There was much questioning of what was done in Kosovo. My party

1079
rightly supported the action that was taken, but widespread concern was expressed about whether British forces should be engaged in such action. That was for the simple reason that no direct British interest was involved, although we had plenty of indirect interests.
The current action is different. What happened on 11 September was on a different scale of gravity and immensity from anything that we have seen before. I was in New York 10 days ago and I visited the site of the World Trade Centre. We have all seen the television pictures and read the stories, but when one sees—and, frankly, smells and tastes—the devastation that was wrought on that day, one understands that what happened was of a different magnitude to anything of that nature that has happened before.
Is military action necessary? Yes. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) talked earlier of the desirability of parallel action in the international court to bring an indictment against bin Laden and he was chided by the Foreign Secretary for suggesting that as an alternative to military action. However, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that. He was making the point that it would look politically more attractive to the wider world, especially those sceptical about what is being done, if we went through the motions—if I can put it that way—of criminal proceedings against someone whom we all believe, with good reason, to have been responsible for what was done, although the Foreign Secretary was right to say that no international tribunal exists today that could undertake that activity.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: What the Foreign Secretary said on that was completely misconceived. Of course there is not an International Criminal Court, although we have been trying to establish one for a long time. However, two international criminal courts, now sitting at the Hague and Arusha, were set up by the United Nations Security Council to act retrospectively under article 29 of the UN charter. I think that the Foreign Secretary knew and understood that it was precisely such a court to which I was referring.
Mr. Maude: That is a perfectly fair point. There is no doubt that it would be legally and physically possible to establish a court that would have retrospective jurisdiction, just as the international criminal tribunal for the Balkans has had. However, the Foreign Secretary makes a good point. I confess to being a sceptic about the International Criminal Court. I doubt whether it would be effective and I think that there are some dangers involved in setting it up.
The terms of the statute that establishes the International Criminal Court do not permit criminal proceedings to be brought against someone who is accused of war crimes unless there is no national court that is able or willing to bring proceedings against him. However, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that the national legal system in the United States has jurisdiction in this matter and that that country is very willing indeed to bring proceedings. Establishing an international tribunal is therefore not really a practical possibility. However, the Foreign Secretary's point is a fair one—that it is not a question of taking military action for the sake of military action—and it is important that that point is widely conveyed. I have no doubt that military action
1080
is necessary. There is no practical alternative. If it is necessary, it has to be pursued with utter relentlessness and with an absolute determination to make it effective.
That brings me to the question of whether what is being done is proportionate. In previous debates, when Parliament was recalled last month and earlier this month, a number of hon. Members expressed surprise that the Administration in Washington were so measured in the way in which they responded, with no instant fireworks and no knee-jerk, immediate sending-off of cruise missiles. That none of that happened should not have been a surprise to those who know the members of that Administration. They are very serious, experienced people, who would not have had any sympathy for the kind of gesture politics that might have been involved in instant reaction, but who have a completely steely determination to ensure that the terrorism that inflicted such brutal damage on so many tens of thousands of lives is rooted out.
Is the response proportionate? Yes, I think that it is. What was done on 11 September was an act of enormous scale, savagery and immensity, so a proportionate response to that is one that is savage and relentless and which has to be made effective. We should have no doubt about that.
Mr. Harold Best: I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about proportionality and about rooting out those who are alleged to be responsible for the offences that have taken place. No one in this House or anywhere in this country would dispute that those events were horrendous, but they raise serious questions about when a policing action—with such force as is necessary for the arrest of the perpetrators of the crime—differs from the force that is being used right now. That force is being described—quite accurately, it seems to me—as war, and is a qualitatively different process. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on those differences?
Mr. Maude: Indeed I shall. We should not try to persuade ourselves that what is going on is a process analogous to sending for the constable to apprehend the villain and sit on his head until help arrives. That is not what is going on here, because we are not operating in a law-abiding environment where there is help of that sort to hand. A widespread criminal gang or network is being harboured in a state that gives it active support and receives active support from it.
The only way to exterminate or eradicate the source of that evil and terrorism is to take military action, and that is being done. We cannot send in the international constables to clap handcuffs on people and feel their collars. Military action must be taken. We all know that the chances of bin Laden being led away by the scruff of his neck are not high. The chances are that he will be killed in the military action, and that is probably a pretty good thing.
The analogy with law enforcement is confusing. Terrible harm is being done and all of us—here, in America and elsewhere—live in daily fear that further great damage will be done. It has to be stopped. Whatever needs be done should be done, and I hope that it will attract widespread support. The point was made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife

1081
(Mr. Campbell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that even in a modern conflict, with modern weapons and all the artistry and science that is available, war cannot be conducted with such pinpoint accuracy that civilians do not get hurt. The politicians involved, the military commanders and those flying the planes take the utmost care to ensure that civilians are as safe as possible. Equally, we must accept that civilians cannot be absolutely safe and that some will be hurt and killed in the process. We must hope that the numbers will be minimal.
Ms Diane Abbott: The right hon. Gentleman calls for effective military action to bring the terrorists to book. The whole House would agree that there should be effective military action. However, for military action to be effective it has to be sustainable. The Americans had to withdraw from Vietnam not because they could not out-gun the Vietnamese, but because their action was not sustainable in the face of world opinion. How long does the right hon. Gentleman think that world opinion, especially in Muslim countries from Nigeria to the middle east, will support the inevitable rising civilian death toll in Afghanistan?
Mr. Maude: I want to come later to that important point, which the hon. Lady is right to raise.
We all accept that the utmost care will be taken to protect civilian lives, but they cannot be completely protected. However, to tailor military action to such an extent that no civilians were ever put at risk would make it ineffective. That would be wrong. Nothing could be better calculated to erode public support in the west—and more widely—than the sense that the action was unnecessarily protracted and becoming ineffective. The more effective the action is the quicker it can be taken and the less difficulty there will be in sustaining public support. I accept that public support outside the west is not nearly as extensive as we would like.
The building of the coalition has been crucial. Many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about that. I commend the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, for the part that they have played, with America, in assembling the coalition. It is crucial that it continues to be sustained. The Prime Minister's role has been important, and it illustrates what some of us have been saying for some time—that although Britain has not been a superpower for many decades, we can none the less exercise influence and make a big difference by dint of who and what we are, what we have been and what we can be. We do not have to be a pale shadow of the United States, nor do we have to allow our diplomatic effect to be subsumed within a European Union common foreign policy.
The Prime Minister and the Government are rightly illustrating daily the fallacy that some people seem to believe—that because we are no longer a superpower and cannot pretend to do everything, we cannot do anything. Britain can do and is doing a great deal and I am delighted. It has played a great role in assembling and sustaining the coalition.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) said when she intervened on the Foreign Secretary to point out that it would be
1082
helpful if other European coalition partners were taking a more visible part in the military action. The right hon. Gentleman properly said that these are military decisions that must be left with military commanders; military demands must be paramount. However, to make this look and feel less like a unilateral United States action, a more visible deployment of a wide array of international military assets would be helpful. I hope that the Government understand that point.
In assembling the coalition, it is right that an opportunity has been taken to take steps on the crucial issue of middle east peace—the Israel-Palestine issue. The Prime Minister was right to take the opportunity to progress that. Again, Britain can make a serious difference. We will never have the clout of the United States in the middle east, but that does not mean that we can do nothing. Britain has credibility with Israel. We have rightly been a long-time supporter of its right to exist in safety and security. At the same time, we have ancient links and friendships with much of the Arab world which enable us to play an intermediary, facilitating role in the promotion of peace. The British Government should be heavily engaged in that process. The coalition has not only to be built but to be sustained. No one would claim that the propaganda battle has been won outside the west and it must continue.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) pointed out in an intervention that many Muslims inside and outside Britain deeply oppose the military action. That is an observable fact. However, we should not just accept it, say that it is difficult and leave it at that. That is where political leadership comes in. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have some influence with the Muslim community here will use all their powers of persuasion to make the case that what was done on 11 September was a defamation of Islam. The present action is not in any sense opposed to Islam. The events of 11 September and the fact that they were done in the name of Islam were as damaging as it was possible for them to be to public perception of Islam.
That propaganda battle is by no means won—perhaps it has not even been properly embarked upon. All political leaders should do all that they can inside the country and beyond to make the case that this action is not about Islam.
Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the problem as regards Muslim opinion. The problem for the great majority of Islamic opinion is not what happened on 11 September, which overwhelmingly Muslims condemn as an atrocity; it is much more with the action to bring to book terrorists, which involves the bombing—as it seems to the Muslim population—of an entire country. That is the argument that has to be engaged.
Mr. Maude: That comes back to my first question: is this military action necessary? Most people in the House and beyond believe that there is simply no other way to bring to book those who committed and organised that act and to ensure that they cannot repeat it. That is the case that has to be made. The Foreign Secretary put it starkly. He said that there is a choice between appeasement and military action. He seemed to fight shy of saying that there is no third way, but I think that is what he was really trying to say. That is the point that must be got across.

1083
It is part of what I mean when I say that political leaders have to make the case for what is being done. That will be crucial. Pakistan is central to that. Of course, there must be enormous sensitivity about the position of the Pakistani Government and great support should be given to General Musharraf, who has behaved with enormous courage—personal and political. He deserves great support for that.
I mildly counsel the Government against being too categoric in saying that the military action should never be extended beyond Afghanistan. Of course, we still cannot be certain that the anthrax attacks emanate from al-Qaeda, although there is inevitably a strong suspicion that that is the case. No one has suggested that al-Qaeda itself has the capability for such manufacture. It is well understood that Iraq has the capability to manufacture such evil products, so there must be a suspicion. No one suggests that one embarks on military action against a country such as Iraq on suspicion; that would be absurd. However, it would be unwise for the Government to rule out at this stage the possibility that further action may be necessary.
Mr. George Galloway: I ask a simple question: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the anthrax bought by the Iraqi regime in the 1980s was sold to it by companies in the United States of America?
Mr. Maude: That may well be the case. I have no knowledge of that so I cannot argue about it. However, that does not alter the fact that we know that Iraq has such a capability, which it has been developing for overtly aggressive reasons. Given the links that we know exist between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, there must be a suspicion that that is the provenance of the anthrax germs used in various attacks. It thus seems wrong at this stage, without being intemperate or precipitate, to exclude as a matter of dogma the possibility that military action could go beyond Afghanistan.
I close with a reflection on the domestic effects. Yesterday, we heard statements from two senior Ministers who made proposals for urgent legislative action. Much of what was said was persuasive. The case being made for particular new provisions is well understood and, on the face of things, it is hard to argue with it. However, Ministers should be aware that Whitehall is riddled with desks whose drawers contain numerous schemes for more regulation, more intervention and more interference with people's lives, which will tend always to alter that crucial balance in the relationship between the citizen and the state.
We should be aware that those schemes—perfectly properly thought up and developed—are always awaiting a political opportunity for their deployment. We should be aware of the "something must be done" syndrome, which is too often operative in politics. The Government of whom I was a member were as guilty of that as any. Something comes up, we want to show that we are doing something and new legislation and regulation seem an easy answer. However, that is rarely the answer, so I counsel the Government to exercise great caution in the schemes for new regulation and new intervention that they propose, and I urge the House to scrutinise any legislation with very great care.
We are not being pettifogging or difficult, but such legislation will affect the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and if the House exists for anything,
1084
it is to protect that balance. We are asking our military forces to go into action to defend democracy, civilised values and the rule of law—all of which were set at nought by the wicked people who set in train the events of 11 September. We honour the memory of those who were killed in those dreadful atrocities if we exercise our functions as a democratic, legislative Chamber as properly and fully as we can.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like you to draw to the Speaker's attention the fact that no Minister from the Ministry of Defence is present, even though a Minister from that Department will be responsible for making the winding-up speech. Irrespective of whether hon. Members agree or disagree with the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), he has just made a thoughtful speech, and it should at least be reflected on by the Minister who will make the winding-up speech. I ask you to raise this issue with Mr. Speaker, because the House of Commons is in danger of talking to thin air. Frankly, the Secretary of State for Defence made the winding-up speech in last Monday's debate, and to anyone who heard the speech, as I did, or read the report of it, it was only too clear that the Government were not listening to what had been said in the House. Not only is that bad manners, but it is a pity, as there is a great deal more knowledge and sense among those on the Back Benches than among those on the Front Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order, but I will ensure that Mr. Speaker is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does the Minister wish to comment?
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that invitation. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's comments. I am making a note of the points that are made. Indeed, I have described the speech made by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) as thoughtful in my notes—precisely the point that my hon. Friend makes.
5.47 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I wish to address the concerns that many of my constituents, not least those from the Muslim community, have raised with me about the activities of the fundamentalist extremists in London who have sinister international links and provide support, aid and comfort to the Taliban and bin Laden. I first raised those concerns in parliamentary questions in January and May last year, and I am pleased that some action at least has been taken in respect of several of those involved, but others remain at large.
I shall begin with Sakina Security Services, which was raided a couple of weeks ago. Sakina is an Islamist security organisation with extremely close links to al-Muhajiroun and Supporters of Sharia. Sakina sends people overseas for jihad training with live arms and ammunition. It is hostile to the British Government, police and security services, and regularly issues threats to British interests in the United Kingdom and overseas. It is also particularly anti-semitic and appears to have singled out the Jewish community as its direct adversary.
In October 2000, Sakina launched an appeal for donations to the Al Aqsa Liberation Fund to raise money to support the Palestinian jihad. The bank account was

1085
held with the Woolwich and was also used to solicit donations for the Taliban. I am pleased to say that that bank account has now been closed. Sakina also had a website on which it advertised training courses, the most impressive—if that is the right word—of which was called "The Ultimate Jihad Challenge". Sakina advertised a two-week course in the United States and emphasised practical live-fire training, using 2,000 to 3,000 rounds of mixed-calibre ammunition. The website said that students would be taught,
"live fire engaging multiple targets; live fire concealed carry; combat jungle run; live fire sniper; live fire shooting at, through and from vehicles"
and many other terrorist skills.
Sakina also organises training in many different sites in the United Kingdom. However, its activities are not limited to that. A bulletin board posted on its website a year ago today claimed that Sakina operatives were in
"occupied Palestine, sisterly Lebanon and in Jordan"
ready to fight in the Palestinian jihad. Although the police have acted, I regret that the Department of Trade and Industry has done nothing to close the company. So far, only one Sakina associate, Sulayman Bilal Zain-ul Abidin—also known as Frank Etim—has been arrested and charged with offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The al-Muhajiroun organisation is inextricably linked with Sakina. It was founded by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed who was given indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 1993. It is also linked to Supporters of Sharia, founded by Abu Hamza who was given UK nationality in 1986. Al-Muhajiroun is dedicated to establishing a Muslim state in Britain. Bakri is openly contemptuous of Britain and the very idea of democracy. He told the Daily Mail on 17 September,
"My job is to speak about Islam. I don't agree with manmade laws. In Britain I engage in opposition to manmade laws and expose the weaknesses of manmade laws. I don't believe in democracy or dictatorship, they are both manmade. They are the two faces of the same coin."
For years al-Muhajiroun has been engaged in training and recruiting young Muslims and is now banned from university campuses. It has engaged in fundraising for terrorist causes, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and has organised violent demonstrations against the Jewish community and the United States. Some of its supporters have been jailed for violent attacks.
In an interview with the Arabic newspaper al-Sharq al-Aswat, Bakri Mohammed boasted that al-Muhajiroun sent Muslim youths on jihad training courses in Virginia, Michigan and the Missouri desert where they learned various techniques for guerrilla warfare, for making explosives and using shoulder-mounted missiles. He stated that between 300 and 400 people were sent on such courses each year, travelling as Europeans on British, French and German passports so that they did not need entry visas for the United States although most were of Asian or Arab origin. The training was organised by a British security firm that is managed by a Muhajiroun member. I believe that to be Sakina Security Services and the Muhajiroun member to be Mohammed Jameel.
In the same article, Bakri Mohammed said that financial contributions to cover the costs were regarded as a grant that the youths had to pay back after their return
1086
by working part time in the Muhajiroun's jihad and call networks which recruit Muslim youths to prepare them militarily. He was asked to name the countries that the youths went to and said that after completing military training
"some went to Kashmir, and others to Chechnya and to Kosovo before that. Some remained in Britain because they were not fully trained ideologically."
More recently, on 21 September, Bakri told supporters outside the Pakistan High Commission that his brother had left to fight in Afghanistan. He said:
"Like me he has received training in Texas and in the north of Scotland where he undertook a one-year course in weapons and evasive vehicle manoeuvring."
On 30 September Omar Bakri Mohammed told activists in Birmingham that they
"had an obligation to help and support Afghanistan and to fight with them."
An additional close link is provided through Mohammed Jameel, one of the organisers of Sakina. He is still at large and has made speeches at many al-Muhajiroun public meetings at which he has been billed as
"co-ordinator of Sakina Security and member of al-Muhajiroun."
In an article for Al-Wassat, another Arabic newspaper, entitled, "Yes, we have camps for the training of the mujahidin", Jameel revealed that Sakina has trained more than 150 youths. He also revealed that it trains Supporters of Sharia members at the Finsbury Park mosque. In the same article, Bakri Mohammed revealed that young men had been sent to camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Abu Yaya is another operative of Sakina. On 26 June 2000 he gave an interview on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 in which he explained that he had just returned from Kashmir having spent four months on military training where he learned everything necessary, including making bombs, using artillery and a Kalashnikov and how to mount an ambush. He cropped up after 11 September as a spokesperson for al-Muhajiroun. On 24 September he said that he had
"a divine obligation to join his brothers and sisters. My allegiance is to Islam, not to Queen or country—if I have to shoot British soldiers, then so be it … There is no law in the UK that can stop us going. I have already had military training, I know the area and I am ready to return to Afghanistan."
There are many similar quotes from other al-Muhajiroun activists. Omar Brooks, speaking to a newspaper on 16 September, said:
"There are a sizeable number of Moslems undergoing military training in the UK … If America decides to bomb Afghanistan, then we'll wake up. If they're going to attack Afghanistan then what's my duty? It's going to be a new chapter."
Zahir Khan told a meeting in Birmingham on 17 September:
"If Britain helped attack Afghanistan, it would be allowable for Moslems to attack military targets in Britain."
Shah Jalal Hussain, another al-Muhajiroun activist, spoke on 19 December of how he and many of his friends who are British Muslims believe that Whitehall and Downing street are "legitimate targets" if Britain helps the US in any strike. Those are not simply the words of hotheads. Those people have had serious military training and they pose a threat that must be taken seriously.
Abu Hamza al-Masri is widely known as one of the people behind the Finsbury Park mosque. In 1997 he ran Al-Ansar, an Arabic newspaper that supported the

1087
Algerian Armed Islamic Group—GIA. The newspaper was originally established by Rachid Ramda, an Algerian who arrived in the UK in 1992 and is accused by France of organising and funding a series of terrorist bombings in France in 1995. He is still fighting his extradition to France.
Abu Hamza closed Al-Ansar in 1997 and in its place launched the Supporters of Sharia, another serious organisation. In 1999, eight British Muslims were convicted in Yemen of plotting terrorist attacks. The Yemenis accused Abu Hamza of organising the plot in conjunction with Islamic terrorists in Yemen. Abu Hamza also often acts as a mouthpiece for Yemen's main Islamic terrorist organisation, the Aden Abyan Islamic Army. When it kidnapped a group of tourists in 1998 its leader decided to announce the news first to Abu Hamza, whom he telephoned.
Recent reports reveal that Ahmed Beghal was a regular attender at the Finsbury Park mosque. He is the leader of a terrorist cell of Takfir wal-Hijra which planned terrorist attacks in Europe, including a suicide bombing of the US embassy in Paris. Beghal lived in London during the late 1990s and was part of a clique of Takfir wal-Hijra supporters, who are still active at the mosque. In July this year he was arrested in Dubai.
Abu Hamza has used his position at the mosque to promote a message of violent and radical extremism. In two speeches at mosques in Burnley, which were broadcast in the "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4, he said:
"Get training … What are you training for? So you can get the kufr"—
the non-believer—
"and crush his head in your arms, so you can wring his throat, so you can rip his intestines out … Forget wasting a bullet on them—cut them in half … if you could put a balaclava on your face and walk down the road and stick one on somebody then do it. As long as you're going to get away with it."
He has incited people to attack Jewish causes, with which he identifies the "Zionists of the west", America and Britain. He incites, provokes and propagates hatred and the killing of the enemies of Islam.
In October 2000 Supporters of Sharia, al-Muhajiroun and the Islamic Observation Centre, led by the Egyptian terrorist Yasser al-Sirri, held a demonstration outside the Egyptian embassy. Abu Hamza implored his supporters to donate money
"to somebody who you know will use it to blow up these Jews, to blow up these Israelis".
Abu Hamza has his own theory about what happened on 11 September. He does not accept that the twin towers were demolished by aircraft: he believes that it was a Zionist plot and that the towers had been stuffed full of explosives. That might be laughable, but his comments have to be taken seriously. It may not be a coincidence that on Saturday night before last the Finsbury Park synagogue was virtually destroyed in an arson attack.
Yasser al-Sirri is wanted by Egypt because of a car bomb that killed a 12-year-old girl and injured scores of her classmates eight years ago. It was recently revealed that he is implicated in the recent suicide bomb murder of the Afghan opposition leader by helping two assassins posing as journalists to obtain Afghan visas. I believe that he is still at large.
1088
Abu Qatada is another person about whom we need to be extremely concerned. The US Treasury has recently named him as one of those whose assets have been frozen there, yet he remains at large in the UK. Abu Qatada, whose full name is Omar Mahmood Abu Omar, is a Palestinian-Jordanian who is closely associated with Jaish Mohammed, a proscribed organisation. In September 2000, he was convicted in his absence in Jordan for the millennium bomb plot. He is a close associate of Omar Bakri Mohammed and Abu Hamza al-Masri, and ran what was known as the Baker street mosque in Marylebone from a youth club, the Four Feathers club, which I believe recently moved to another address in the Harrow Road. One attendee of the youth club was shot dead at an Islamic school in Yemen.
Qatada has built a reputation for spreading extremism and division in the Muslim community in this country. In Brighton, he led a group of radicals who unseated the moderate imam of the mosque there. He has been to both Afghanistan and Bosnia, and been highly involved in many activities. Zacarias Moussaoui, the suspected 20th hijacker, regularly attended the Baker street mosque run by Abu Qatada, who has twice been convicted for his role in terrorist attacks in Jordan.
Surely it is time to take action against such extremists. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions have not adopted as aggressive an approach as they should have in dealing with these individuals. However, our laws must not permit companies, organisations or individuals to be used as fronts for terrorist fundraising or money laundering. We cannot permit the continuing organisation of package tours for trainee terrorists, on which they learn to kill with modern weapons and tactics. We must prevent the sending of youngsters to every troublespot around the world, where their lives are at risk or they threaten the lives of others, including British service personnel.
I am pleased that our race hate laws are to be strengthened to include religion, but in protecting our Muslim communities, that review must also deal with the incitement to violence and conspiracies of the extremists. There can be little doubt about what al-Muhajiroun, Supporters of Sharia, Bakri Mohammed, Abu Hamza and the rest are up to. They are bin Laden's fellow travellers. We must proscribe their organisations under the terrorism legislation.
As we review our asylum and immigration law, we must not just speed up extradition but respond to those who seek extradition of people such as Abu Qatada. The Home Secretary's powers to revoke indefinite leave to remain must be clarified and strengthened. It should be extended to the revocation of recently granted UK citizenship, so that those who abuse our democratic system and actively seek to destroy the society that protects them from the regimes that they would themselves impose on others can be removed if it is conducive to the public good and their own security to do so. We cannot allow the human rights of everyone else to be threatened any longer by such extremists.
6.2 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: I apologise to both Front-Bench teams for being unable to be present for the winding-up speeches owing to a prior private engagement.
I was in New York last week; I got back on Sunday. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who might have been the shadow Foreign

1089
Secretary but for one vote, I experienced the very strange atmosphere in the city, especially the strange smell which once experienced is never forgotten. I add to that the sound at night of empty and loaded trucks carrying masses of rubble and remains from the city. To grasp the scale of the catastrophe, we must remember that only one fifth of the rubble has been removed and that those trucks will be rolling for at least a year. That is a staggering thought.
One lesson of the conflict is that we must not alter our lives for terrorism. I say that having had some experience serving in Northern Ireland at the start of the troubles. The Government should try to persuade us to maintain our life styles wherever possible. When we change them, we give in to the terrorism and give the terrorists what they want. Maintaining our life styles may not be possible in all circumstances, but there has been much panic and it is unnecessary.
Let us consider that, since the troubles in Northern Ireland began in 1969, terrorism has claimed 3,000 lives—very few on the mainland—yet every year there are between 1.600 and 1,900 accidents involving buses and pedestrians in Britain. So, the chances of being hit by a bus are infinitely greater than being involved in a terrorist incident. The Government should try to stress that.
I was at the NBC studio on Sunday when the issue of anthrax was discussed. Indeed, I met someone who had been in contact with the gentleman who had been diagnosed as having contracted it. I spoke to some of the medical specialists present. They stressed that cases of anthrax had been quite common among textile workers in America. I represent what used to be a textile constituency—we have lost so many factories—but we have never had a case of anthrax in Hinckley. The medical specialists stressed two points: first, that one should not take an antibiotic if one has not contracted the disease, and secondly, that the medicines for treating it are potent and effective. We must try to avoid being frightened to death, which is exactly what the terrorists want.
Another impression from the United States was the worry—it was present in the United Kingdom last week, too—about public relations, how we are carrying our cause and whether we are effective. We have made one glaring error in talking about crusades. Such talk was probably instinctive for those of a particular religion, but it was unfortunate.
This morning I was talking to somebody who is very close to a broadcaster on an Islamic radio station in Britain about the mistake of linking the words "Islamic" and "terrorism". We are dealing not with Islamic terrorism but with terrorism that is perpetrated by a very small proportion of a particular community. We must not talk about "Islamic terrorism", which tends to bring the whole of Islam into the matter.
We have heard the eloquent comments of colleagues such as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the concerns that we all feel over the loss of civilian life in Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham highlighted the difficulty of conducting military campaigns without the loss of civilian life. However, the Government must keep pointing out that what happened on the site of the World Trade Centre, which is now called Ground Zero, was the
1090
worst single civilian massacre in living memory. There was no military target. The massacre included victims from the Greek, Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities; every religion was represented in that catastrophe.
We must at times take very determined action against terrorists. Such action had to be taken against Colonel Gaddafi, and we did not hear much from him afterwards. We had to take tough action in the Gulf. I was then secretary of the Conservative Back-Bench foreign affairs and defence committees. We were a little wobbly at times; we felt very concerned about what was going on. It was not pleasant. The situation in Bosnia has been mentioned. How would we have brought Mr. Milosevic to book had we not taken action? What awful ramifications would there have been for Macedonia and the whole theatre if we had not acted?
We must not just wield a big stick but carefully consider the carrots. I say that sincerely. We must get across in a much more concise and understandable way what the west intends to do to help not the rich countries in the theatre but some of the poorer ones. We need to come up with a few phrases that catch on, such as "Aid to Arabia" and to get across the fact that we are concerned about the nations in the area, that there is a western plan measurably to improve the standard of living, and that that is an integral part of our strategy.
America's history of war and reconstruction provides telling evidence of the two processes going hand in hand. The last great shock to strike America before the catastrophe occurred at the World Trade Centre was Pearl Harbour. The Americans talk all the time about that shock attack by the Japanese, and there was great hatred in the United States for the behaviour of the Japanese during the second world war. However, at the end of that war, General MacArthur went to Japan not to demand the emperor's head, but to reconstruct Japan. Why do the Japanese now love playing golf? Why do they wear American baseball caps? Why do they play in the American baseball league? It is because they could not comprehend the United State's kindness in coming to their defeated nation and reconstructing it.
Other examples include the Marshall plan in Europe and the reconstruction of the southern confederacy after the civil war. The book that President Bush is currently reading is "April 1865", which is about events in the month preceding the conclusion of the American civil war. It tells of the reconstruction planning and attempts to find a solution that would ensure stability in the south. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is thinking as a doctor and wondering how we can treat the patient—although we might have to adopt a rather tougher approach than he takes in his surgery.
Mr. Salmond: He is a psychiatrist.
Mr. Tredinnick: I had better not take up the opportunity that that comment provides, lest I be called to order.
In the emergency debate a couple of weeks ago, I stated my belief that what we needed was a United Nations solution for Afghanistan. I believe that even more strongly now, especially when I consider that if the Northern Alliance take Kabul, it will be extremely hard to get rid of them. Think about what happened in Berlin at the end

1091
of 1945: the Russians surged across the lands of the Third Reich and did not hand control of Berlin to the four powers until they had thoroughly sanitised and bugged it. It took lengthy negotiations before our forces got to Berlin, which made matters extremely difficult.
We have to look beyond Afghanistan. Many hon. Members have spoken eloquently about the problems that confront us in that theatre, and I do not propose to repeat their remarks. I think that there is a momentum toward change in many places, and when drawing up a settlement after the war in Afghanistan ends—however it ends—we should include other troubled areas. Pressure should be exerted to resolve the Kashmir conflict, and to end the troubles in Sierra Leone. We have an opportunity to change our relationship with Iran, which was once our staunchest ally in that region. However many Chieftain tanks Iran bought from the United Kingdom, they are still there. In the old days, Iran was a great trading partner for us. There is work to be done, but great opportunities to change things for the better arise out of tragedy.
In all our debates, we hear about Israel and Palestine—whatever we are supposed to call it. I know that the Government got into some difficulties with descriptions of Palestine. I met Yasser Arafat many years ago in Tunis, when he was still classified as a terrorist. Like the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), I thought that that was an important mission that we had to undertake if we were to build bridges.
Currently, there are two fundamental problems in the region that must be resolved. The first problem is the settlements. It has caused problems throughout the Arab world. I checked the figure in the Library: there are 200,000 settlers in approximately 150 settlements and according to current reports settlements are still being built in contravention of existing arrangements. Another problem, left over from the Yom Kippur war, is that there are 607,000 registered refugees in the west bank and 852,000 in Gaza—displaced Arab people who have never found a home. Those two problems form a double powder keg in the region. Having visited the region, I think that the settlements have to be stopped. Peace will never be possible unless that happens.
I strongly believe that the greater the disaster, the greater is the potential for good. Now is the time for the Government—whom I commend on their handling of much of the crisis—and the United States Administration and all brave men to stand up and try to resolve as many of the conflicts in the world as we can. That might sound rather grandiose, but it is something to bear in mind, even though we are faced with an extremely difficult struggle. We have one ghastly statistic in common with the former Soviet Union: we both lost about 16,000 men in Afghanistan. That region will never be an easy theatre—
Patrick Mercer (Newark) indicated assent.
Mr. Tredinnick: I see my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished soldier, nodding. We will probably not be able to achieve our aims simply by dropping matériel from the air. However, with God's help, we will prevail.
6.16 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To be frank, in 39 years I have never heard so much cosy self-delusion as has been uttered by those on the Front Benches during
1092
this debate. What on earth do we mean by "carefully calibrated reactions"? The truth is that there will be massacres of civilians and that these events will go on and on.
We talk about "effective military action". What on earth is effective about dropping bombs from 30,000 ft, trying to attack the heartland of bin Laden, which is almost certainly tunnels, at high altitude? It is sheer cant to pretend that after nine days we are involved in effective military action.
The Foreign Secretary tells us that there is no alternative, but there is an alternative: it is to do something on the intelligence front, to follow every lead in the background to the atrocity. Some of us simply do not believe that the atrocities against Manhattan and the Pentagon were in any way honed or finalised in some cave in Afghanistan. The truth is that they were honed and finalised much nearer home—in western Europe, in Hamburg, Harburg, London and Leicester, and in the United States itself. What is being done to follow up the leads to those who were actually involved in committing the crimes?
We are told by the Secretary of State for International Development that the Law Officers are asked to give approval every time there is a targeting. I want to know whether that is a fact. No answer has yet been given by way of parliamentary question. Are the Law Officers consulted on every target? Do the Americans consult us? I should like the Minister who winds up the debate to tell us whether we are consulted or not.
I believe in short speeches, and many hon. Members want to speak. I have made the points that I think are relevant.
6.19 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): The Foreign Secretary made many comparisons between the action against Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and the action in Kosovo, which I supported at the time it was being carried out. It strikes me, however, that there are two glaring differences: first, in Kosovo we knew the enemy—we knew who was in charge and where he was—and, secondly, there were not 7.5 million people on the point of starvation before the action started.
When this all started two weeks ago, we were promised a three-pronged approach, including military action delivering justice, not revenge, through proportionate action. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), as I assumed that that action was going to be mainly intelligence work to find out what was going on behind the scenes, and that it would not be indiscriminate.
We were promised diplomatic action, which continues and in which the Prime Minister has played a great part, but we were also promised humanitarian action, on which I shall speak later. Military action has now gone on for 10 days. We were told by an American general that there are few military targets left, but the psychopath Osama bin Laden and his gangs are still at large.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Lady agree that bin Laden and his gang will be simply delighted by the bombing? They foresaw the trouble that would be stirred up in Pakistan and the great difficulty that would be created in Saudi Arabia. Might it not be that bin Laden's object is

1093
to stir up such trouble in Saudi Arabia that the house of Saud falls and, according his own perception, be it realistic or not, he can return to Saudi Arabia, as Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran?
Dr. Tonge: I agree entirely. I was going on to say that bin Laden is still at large and that the fragile coalition, which has been painstakingly crafted by the Prime Minister, is showing signs of strain. That is precisely what bin Laden wanted.
The Taliban may eventually crumble and have to be replaced by another—we hope, better—Government. I have always worried and wondered—this is genuine and I hope that the Minister will address it—whether that will affect bin Laden and his gangs. Will he not just go somewhere else? I suspect that he has always ruled the Taliban, rather than be controlled by them, evil and horrible a Government though they are. When the Taliban are gone, Afghanistan is destroyed and bin Laden and his gangs are still at large, who do we bomb, and what will the Muslim world think of us? What is the future?
My other main concern is the humanitarian action promised after 11 September, which so far has been quite inadequate; continued bombing is making the humanitarian situation far worse. We know that transport, particularly road transport, is fundamental to the humanitarian effort, yet experience in other recent conflicts such as Bosnia and Kosovo suggests that high-level bombing can often lead to the destruction of transport infrastructure. The risk of that happening is higher if the conflict in Afghanistan is extensive and prolonged. Indeed, one cannot rule out the possibility of those under threat deliberately destroying key transport infrastructure themselves, making it even more difficult and perhaps impossible to provide and distribute food and essential non-food resources to those in need.
In his winding-up speech, will the Minister address the Foreign Secretary's suggestion that charges are being made on aid convoys going in and out of Afghanistan? If that is true and convoys are getting there—we understand that 500 tonnes of food are getting in every day—who is paying for the trucks? Is that why the Secretary of State for International Development announced a £15 million increase in aid? Is it to pay for trucks? If we are not paying, what is happening to the trucks? May we have a little more detail to make sure that that is not just a story that is going around?
Whatever people think, Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, definitely said:
"Are we going to preside over deaths from starvation of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people this winter, because we didn't use the window of opportunity before winter closes?"
That window is getting smaller and smaller; four weeks, probably, are left to deliver aid. By contrast, the UK's Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, now says that
"we must expect to go through the winter and into next summer at the very least".
Does he mean that we will be bombing all that time, and, if he does, what on earth are we going to bomb?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Lady clarify one point? is she speaking for her party
1094
or entirely as a Back Bencher? We have heard a different line from her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). It would be interesting to know whether she is given free rein to speak as she wishes or whether she is speaking as her party spokesman.
Dr. Tonge: I am speaking as my party's spokesman on international development, and about all the factors that are affecting the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Whether or not the hon. Lady is speaking officially for her party, she is speaking for many in the House.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The aid agencies tell us that the only effective way to address the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, with its hilly terrain, is to bring in necessary food and non-food items by road, and to administer that using people familiar with local needs, conditions and customs. That must be done now, before winter comes.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) pointed out the mammoth task ahead: 120,000 tonnes of food is needed, which breaks down to 343 trucks a day taking in 3,430 tonnes of food. At the moment, 500 tonnes are going in; I do not know how many trucks that represents. All I know is that it means an awful lot of people are going to die. Unless action is stepped up, famine will be upon Afghanistan in the winter.
Some people have accused me of being unhappy about the Americans dropping food parcels, having originally said that we should bomb Afghanistan with food and aid. However, the food parcels dropped alongside the bombs are extremely dangerous and are an insignificant way of providing aid. Not only do they drop into fields where there are land mines—local people can be blown up trying to retrieve them—but they are unsuitable provisions that are no good for Afghan people to eat. Moreover, they link aid with bombing, which is very dangerous indeed for the aid agencies, as they have repeatedly pointed out to the international community.
I still do not rule out the possibility that there may have to be some form of air lift over the winter to bring food and aid to the Afghan people. I do not see how we will get essential aid there if we do not do that.
A successful humanitarian approach has three critical ingredients: transport, security and speed. The opening up of the road system while it exists is necessary, as is the guaranteeing not only of a safe passage for those trucks bringing in essential supplies but the safety of those monitoring needs and overseeing the distribution of food and non-food items—a difficult procedure. With winter fast approaching, speed is of the essence if we are to avoid the catastrophic consequences of inaction.
The situation is desperate. We must ensure that the international community puts the needs of millions of innocent people in Afghanistan first and creates the conditions whereby all those people in need receive sufficient aid. As international development spokesperson for my party, I feel that we must call for a pause in the widespread military action in Afghanistan so that aid channels to all those in need can reopen in the few

1095
remaining weeks before winter. If we do not, we not only condemn hundreds of thousands to death by starvation but endanger the coalition against terrorism.
6.30 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I was in the United States on 11 September, and I want to begin by taking us back to the atrocities, because it seems that several weeks later the magnitude of the disaster has begun to diminish in many minds and in the press, where we are now seeing pictures of what is happening in Afghanistan. I witnessed the horrific events of 11 September and their aftermath live on the US media, which are a bit different from our own. Over the next 10 days, I talked about what happened as I continued to travel around meeting American people. Thus, I felt that I shared their experience, even though, thankfully, I did not experience close up the suffering of New York and Washington.
For obvious reasons, I could not return to the House on 14 September, but I watched events in the Chamber live on American public broadcasting at—I think—2.30 am mountain time. The House was solemn in and very moved, but a number of contributions of all types made it clear that it was very difficult for people in this country to feel the same sense of outrage as was felt in the United States. That was made even clearer when I returned home. I found some media reports very offensive, especially the anti-American streak that was evident at that time.
The events have now become known simply as 11 September, and that is what we all call them. I am concerned lest that term should become another example of the classic British understatement with which we always use the terms "Falklands conflict", as if what occurred was not a war, and "the troubles in Northern Ireland", as if what is happening there is of minor importance. In the United States, what happened was unanimously and spontaneously called an attack on America. That is what it was—an act of war. I suppose that using that term in this country would have made the events seem remote and not especially relevant, but we now know that it could have been us on 11 September. We know that attacks were being planned at the same time in a number of European countries and targeted on European Union institutions. What occurred was an attack on us all. I repeat what has been said so often: it was an attack on our basic freedom and on our democracy and economy. Worryingly, that attack is continuing.
We should not ignore the targets and the symbolic importance of the Pentagon and the towers of the World Trade Centre. I call what happened an attack on our whole way of life. We witnessed a level of terrorism that was unprecedented and that had previously been unthinkable. Sadly, it made me reflect that we had got used to some acts of terrorism, such as the hijacking of planes. Executives who travel around the world are given guidance by their companies on what to do in the event of hijack. That is why so many of the passengers on the first three planes sat still, thinking that they were going to be taken somewhere else. It was only on the fourth plane, when they learned through mobile phones about what was in store, that they tried to resist. We have become used to the planting of bombs in city centres. We are not even surprised any more when aeroplanes are blown up, as happened over Lockerbie.
It was sad that we had come to tolerate terrorism before 11 September, but we must remember that turning civil aircraft into flying bombs four at a time and slamming
1096
them into buildings is co-ordinated warfare. That is why we must adopt a response to terrorism that is different from that which we have used previously. Surely, we are not going to become used to flying-bomb aircraft attacks on buildings or germ warfare.
We know that what happened was not the act of individual fanatics, but the deadly deed of a terrorist organisation whose network covers the world. We now know that it is principally based in Afghanistan. That is why I do not see how we can possibly pursue the sort of judicial, Lockerbie-style approach of conducting a criminal investigation and lengthy extradition procedures, and then putting two or three people on trial about 10 years later. That is not a sufficient response and it would be unrealistic to expect the American people and their Government to accept it as a way forward. We would not accept such a response if the attack had been made here.
The scale, sophistication and depth of the terrorist organisation that inflicted disaster on America had never before been fully appreciated. Certain targets must be destroyed by military means. Some people say such means will not work, but they are advocating the do nothing option. If we did nothing, terrorists would laugh at our inaction, which would go down in history as another form of appeasement.
Other people ask what can be done and how terrorism can best be tackled. Some of them say that it is impossible to defeat it. The suggestion that nothing should be done because any action is difficult makes us feel as though we are facing the mythical creature whose teeth came alive when it died. However, there is a time for us to stand up and do something, and I believe that now is that time.
I mentioned the anti-Americanism that pervaded much of the debate about what happened. I find such an attitude especially difficult to understand at this time. We know that the target was not only the United States, but the whole of the so-called western world—a world that is now diverse. We are not all white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. When one travels around America, one sees that it is an incredibly diverse country. It was born out of people who were seeking refuge and asylum, and it has continued to develop along those lines throughout its history. Those who were responsible for 11 September used the freedom of America to enter the country and sign up at flying schools. They used all the freedoms of that country to construct their plot, which is very difficult to understand.
Some people were concerned that the Americans would respond in a stereotypical way and recklessly blow up half the world. They have shown themselves to be better than that. I believe that their approach has been patient and calculated. Let us not forget that this was not the first attack. Two horrific attacks were made on embassies abroad. They targeted not rich, western capitalists, but poor people in Africa. Previous attacks were also made on the World Trade Centre and the American warship USS Cole. In addition, various other attacks on America were headed off at an early stage.
We know where anti-Americanism comes from. I was opposed to America's actions in Vietnam and I still do not agree with what it did, but let us not forget something else about American history and foreign policy: America supported us in our time of need during the second world war. Last week, I heard a radio programme—I think that it was broadcast on BBC Radio 5 Live—whose topic was

1097
whether this was our war and whether the action had anything to do with us. We should thank America for not taking such a line in the second world war.
Some people place great emphasis on tackling the problem by dealing with the underlying causes of terrorism. Of course we must pursue that approach, which is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was doing yesterday, and we all wish him the best in that respect, but before suggesting that that is all that we should do we must bear in mind the people with whom we are dealing. The only way in which we could stop al-Qaeda by such means would be to give it absolutely everything it wanted, which would merely encourage groups around the world to make demands on the basis of violence and to stop only if every single demand were met. Even then, they would probably think up more demands at the last moment.
Some people are so fanatical that, to them, terrorism is almost an end in itself. That is shown by groups such as the Real IRA. Earlier, it was said that if the Palestinian problem were solved tomorrow, al-Qaeda would continue its work. I share that view because that organisation comprises a bunch of people who hate the world in which they live. They believe that they can purify it by killing people throughout it, not only in the United States and Europe. In their countries, they kill people of their own religion whom they do not deem sufficiently pure.
The Taliban regime is the modern form of Nazism. I read that, in the Taliban's Afghanistan, people from minorities are told to wear armbands; women are treated despicably, and the regime even take it out on Buddhist statues. I therefore make no distinction between the Taliban and bin Laden's organisation: one represents the home front; the other, the foreign legion. We should not forget that more people have suffered death in Afghanistan at the hands of the Taliban than died in Washington and New York on 11 September.
Afghanistan was not always like that. The Afghan people are not evil. Some years ago, I spent several weeks in Afghanistan, and I know that they are a proud and decent people, but they entered a dark age with the Taliban. Consequently, many Afghans have left in desperate predicaments and many still want to leave. The Government's stance is therefore necessary not only for our international security and to protect our way of life, but to rescue the people of Afghanistan from that terrible regime.
I am pleased about the bipartisan support, which is an important aspect of the coalition. I wish that all parties could unite in it. It is important to keep other Muslim states on side. It was easy for people to condemn the attacks on 11 September, but it is more difficult for them to take military action. However, we must maintain the diplomatic initiative; otherwise, bin Laden will succeed in his aim of provoking the third world war—the west against the Muslim countries. That would not be in the interests of the moderate, more sensible Muslim states. Their interests are not served by that; they clearly want a peaceful existence and trade. However, the campaign is a test for their Governments.
No Government is being tested more than that of Pakistan. I join in the tributes paid to that country tonight. When General Musharraf took over, many of us criticised the coup. However, he has been put to the test and he is
1098
currently passing it. Demonstrations of 10,000 or 12,000 people in Quetta and Karachi are substantial, but they are a minority in Pakistan.
The coalition is one not simply of countries but of various strands that our action must include. I should like more humanitarian aid to be pledged to those inside and outside Afghanistan when the campaign is over. The action must also include the financial measures that the Chancellor outlined yesterday; the new drive, which the Prime Minister is currently advancing, on the Palestinian question—that must involve the establishment of a Palestinian state—and the military campaign. Those strands must be combined in a strategy. If we continue to do that, the Prime Minister will have my support in taking forward the fight against international terrorism.
6.44 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): I begin with two observations. First, the attendance is disappointing, given the extent of the crisis. Last week's debate was far better attended. That could lead to the conclusion that the House is better attended in the recess than when it is sitting. More hon. Members should be present to discuss the situation.
Secondly, I hope that the Government have noted the mood of most of the contributions so far. Substantial questioning has occurred, and there is a sober, cautious tone. No speech could be described as gung-ho. Unlike last week, Tory Front-Bench Members have made no such contributions. I hope that Ministers who are present will take that into account.
I have been interested in the Government's position on the extent of the conflict in which we are engaged, and in ascertaining to what, exactly, we have signed up. Last week, I considered the legal basis for the conflict. To some people, those points appear pernickety. However, we should know the legal position and the war aims and objectives when engaging in a military conflict. I was present 10 years ago during the debates on the Gulf war, and I have noticed that many hon. Members are less interested now in the aspects that I am considering. Perhaps that reflects the fact that many hon. Members with experience of military conflict have left the House and that such voices are not heard to the same extent.
As I said earlier, the Government did not publish the document, "Defeating International Terrorism: Campaign Objectives", when Mr. Alastair Campbell briefed the press about it last Thursday; it was placed in the Library today. That was not an oversight. I asked 10 Downing street for a copy last Thursday, and my request was refused. It is disappointing that the document was not published then because it is reassuring in many ways. It confines the military aspect of the campaign to Afghanistan. It is reassuring, especially for me and for several other hon. Members, because the last sentence states:
"Any action taken to achieve our objectives will need to be in conformity with international law, including the United Nations charter and international humanitarian law."
I do not understand the Government's reluctance to publish the document last Thursday. As the campaign proceeds, I hope that the Government will be prepared to share important decisions with a wider public and hon. Members and that they will not be refracted through the prism of Mr. Alastair Campbell's interpretation of events and what he believes that people want to hear.

1099
Last week, I believed that it was important to press the point of article 51 and the United Kingdom letter to the Security Council, which we were bound to produce under international law. Thanks to the good offices of the Secretary of State for International Development, it was published. Lo and behold, there was an important difference between the letters of the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government. The United Kingdom letter did not contain a phrase that appeared in the United States letter. It stated:
"We may find that our self-defence requires further actions with respect to other organisations and other states."
In the United States letter, that phrase appeared directly under the paragraph that dealt with military action. It would be impossible to read the letter without taking the broad hint, as the press did, that military action was being planned against other states.
I welcome the fact that the phrase did not appear in the United Kingdom letter. Its omission suggested that there was no support for broadening the military aspect of the conflict. However, it would have been better to state the aims and objectives earlier. I hope that that lesson has been learned.
Some of the items that have appeared in the press purport to reflect the views of some members of the United States Administration. On Sunday, The Observer cited officials close to a group in the American Administration that supports an early strike against Iraq and quoted one as saying:
"We see this war as one against the virus of terrorism. If you have bone marrow cancer, it's not enough to just cut off the patient's foot. You have to do the complete course of chemotherapy. And if that means embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, that's what we're doing."
I do not know how highly placed the unnamed official is. However, the duty Minister is a psychiatrist; I should have thought that anyone who in the space of four short sentences can combine the concepts of virus, bone marrow cancer, amputation, chemotherapy and the hundred years' war is badly in need of psychological profiling.
The Leader of the House is in his place. He has talked about the targeted nature of the military action on several news programmes. It is important to maintain that focus in contrast to the loose talk in other quarters.
I said last week that the real, immediate battle would not take place in the skies above Afghanistan, because there was virtually no contest. We were talking about the deployment of all the modern apparatus of warfare against what was, effectively, decrepit anti-aircraft machinery and small-arms fire. The real battle would take place for public opinion, on the streets of a variety of Muslim countries. The Government should make some attempt to recognise what is happening, and to tell us what they intend to do about it. Over the last week that battle has been lost, and lost overwhelmingly, as far as we can tell from Islamic opinion.
The results of a Gallup poll have been released by CNN. The fact that the results were released by CNN and the poll was conducted by Gallup should give us some indication of the veracity of the findings, which suggest that 83 per cent, of Pakistanis who were consulted supported the Taliban against the United States. Some 82 per cent. termed Osama bin Laden a holy warrior, not a terrorist, and only 12 per cent. believed him to be responsible for the attacks on 11 September.
1100
Given our own perspective, those are dramatic—and dramatically worrying—figures. I would have appreciated some indication from the Foreign Secretary of what is being done to try to combat a feeling that I suspect is far more representative of the Islamic world than many Members would care to admit.
On the same subject, let me say that the last thing a Government engaged in what may seem to be a propaganda war but is, surely, a war about principle, truth and liberal democracy—all of which we are meant to hold dear—should do is allow Mr. Alastair Campbell to give the BBC, ITN and other news organisations a dressing down about how they choose to cover the international situation. Perhaps Mr. Campbell's efforts and skills would be better devoted to trying to win the battle of public opinion where it has to be won—in the Islamic world—rather than to engaging in what looks like panic at best and extreme foolishness at worst.
I also think that it would be useful not to read reports that pressure is being put on Qatar to try to close down Al-Jazeera, which, in contrast to many organs of the press throughout the Muslim world, shows a degree of independence, objectivity and freedom of editorial comment that we in the west would presumably like to see applied, given our belief in liberal democracy. Surely our analysis should conclude that the lack of those elements in many if not all Islamic countries is one aspect of the problem. It was therefore depressing to read in a newspaper that an attempt was being made to curtail the station.
My next point relates to the bombing campaign itself. I do not share the Foreign Secretary's confidence in the efficacy of bombing campaigns, and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with his view of the bombing campaign in Kosovo. A serious analysis of that campaign suggests that the only thing that was not hit to any great extent was the Serbian army. Lots of other things were hit. It is also possible to argue with some force that, if anything, the conduct of that campaign prolonged Milosevic's hold on power in Serbia rather than loosening it, and that the decisive intervention was the diplomatic intervention of the Russians, who abandoned support for the Milosevic regime.
Even given the best possible interpretation, I hope that no Member would be satisfied with the accuracy of a bombing campaign like that employed in the Kosovan and Serbian conflict. I remind the House that trains, buses, civilian convoys and the Chinese embassy were hit. I cannot believe that anyone would want to see a similar impact in Afghanistan over the coming days and weeks.
It has been argued, with substantial force, that there is no moral equivalence between a campaign that targets civilians and an essentially military campaign in which civilians are collateral damage. I agree with that, as a moral point: in that context, a distinction can be made. I would only make the additional point that for someone who is killed or maimed as a result of action, there is total equivalence, whether death is caused by friendly fire and good intent, or by a directly attributable terrorist atrocity.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is right that bombing alone did not win in Kosovo, but does he not accept that there is a difference between what the Government were saying then and what they are saying now? There was an argument then that bombing alone

1101
might win in Kosovo; I am not aware that the Government have said that bombing alone will win in Afghanistan. I believe the Government's position to be that bombing is a necessary precursor to other military action to win in Afghanistan, and if that is their position I think that Opposition Members owe it to them to support it until we see whether that other military action is indeed effective.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. One mistake that I think would be generally acknowledged, even perhaps by Ministers in retrospect, was the announcement at the start of the Kosovo action that no other military intervention was being considered. That, I feel, is the equivalent of an announcement during the second world war that only a bombing campaign against continental Europe was envisaged, without a D-day landing. I do not think that the Government would wish to make the same mistake again.
Let me now refer to what I suspect people should hear. I want the Government to take Macbeth's advice:
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly".
The most important aspect of the present situation is the necessity for speed, and that is why I feel extremely concerned. I know that the wise words are that it will take months and years, and that there cannot be a quick result or an effective early conclusion; but months and years are extremely dangerous in the case of this conflict, for three reasons.
First, the humanitarian clock is ticking. The concern expressed by Labour Members, by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and by my colleagues in Plaid Cymru over the last week will be shared by a growing number of people. Indeed, I think that everyone is now concerned about the fact that between 5 million and 7 million people risk starvation, but there is overwhelming evidence from aid agencies that in the current circumstances aid cannot get through. The Government say that it is the fault of the Taliban, and they are probably right—it probably is the Taliban's fault in many cases—but if a substantial number of people starve in Afghanistan over the coming weeks and months, believe me, it will not be the Taliban who are held responsible for that humanitarian disaster. The Government and the allies must therefore consider military action that will look for a conclusion sooner rather than later.
It was suggested from Pakistan this evening that 17 November—the onset of Ramadan—is being set as the deadline for the bombing phase of the campaign. Members would be interested to know whether the Government will confirm that during the debate. It is probably impossible to set deadlines, but the importance of Ramadan in the Islamic world, and also the fact that speed is of the essence, suggest that such deadlines might be welcome.
The second factor in favour of quick, early, effective action is public opinion in the Muslim world. Referring to the hitting of the Red Cross depot today, the Foreign Secretary said that no medicines or food had been involved. That is not what the International Committee of the Red Cross is saying, although it has confirmed that, thankfully, no Red Cross personnel were killed. All
1102
actions that result in civilian casualties will be as banners throughout the Muslim world, and the longer the action continues, the more difficult things will be.
The third and, in some ways, the strongest reason for an early end to the conflict is the fact that during the military stage of a campaign the chance of action spilling into neighbouring states and other conflicts is at its highest. We have already seen evidence in the past 24 hours of the danger of the simmering cold war in Kashmir becoming a hot one. The chances of spillover are at their greatest when military action is taking place.
Many hon. Members have said that good might come out of evil, and I share that view. I depart from some in believing that it was not possible for the American Administration, as indeed Nelson Mandela has said, simply to fold their hands in the face of the atrocities committed in Washington and New York. However, if we are to have action that, as the Foreign Secretary put it, makes the world a safer place as opposed to an ever more dangerous one, much more thought than we have witnessed today from Government Members needs to be given to the end game of the military action, as well as to the speed with which it is progressing.
I hope that the balance of the contributions that we have heard show that, although the Government have broad support, that support cannot in any way be taken for granted.
7.1 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton): My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made several references to anti-Americanism. That reminded me of a comment made by an American friend of mine, Irwin Stelzer, who would happily be described as on the right of the American political spectrum. He charged me with displaying a visceral anti-Americanism for daring to make some comments about American, and indeed British, policy pertaining to the terrible events of 11 September. I replied that, despite my rather pronounced viscera, there is not one iota of anti-Americanism therein. We have a duty in the House to discuss these issues, but we are having to do so against the background of a charge of anti-Americanism.
Within a week of the terrible events of 11 September, a broadsheet Lobby correspondent had a story about a Cabinet Minister spiked. It was entirely unrelated to the Departments concerned with the events post-11 September and certainly nothing to do with those events, but it was deemed by the editor to be unpatriotic in any way to criticise a member of the Cabinet at such a time. Frankly, there is a dereliction of duty on the part of both the fourth estate and ourselves if we do not raise the issues that are important to us with the candour that should be expected of us.
It is in the context of that constructive candour that I want to respond to some of the points made by the Foreign Secretary. He referred to the overwhelming evidence of the involvement of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. I do not doubt that they are terrible people, guilty of terrible crimes, and that there is evidence against them, but the truth is that the document placed in the Library contained conclusions, not evidence. As I recall, there was a caveat on the top saying that it would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.
I do not object to that, but I would like to know, given that there is a Muslim view that we in the west have been less than even-handed in events such as Srebrenica and

1103
Sabra and Shatila, what evidence was presented to Muslim members of the alliance to convince them of the truth of the charges against Osama bin Laden. I do not ask to know what the evidence is, but has it been shared with those people, in order to cement the alliance?
The Foreign Secretary repudiated the notion that bin Laden and his accomplices could be arraigned before an international court. There are learned Members, both Government and Opposition, who will raise these matters with far more eloquence and knowledge than I could ever hope to have, but a question occurred to me: if we accept that the only effective way of dealing with Osama bin Laden is to apprehend him, if that is possible, and arraign him before an American court, where does that leave Muslim public opinion as regards Sharon?
Would the Lebanon be justified in demanding that Ariel Sharon be arraigned before a Lebanese court for the events in Shatila and Sabra? We are talking about international terrorism. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the International Criminal Court will not have retrospective jurisdiction, but could Cambodia or Chile arraign Henry Kissinger on charges of international terrorism? I ask because that is the history that has informed the Muslim view.
I was taken by the reference to drugs as part of the post facto justification for the military intervention in Afghanistan. I do not recall any suggestion in the past that we should use military force to eradicate that source of narcotics. I also wonder whether the Northern Alliance, as an even greater trafficker in narcotics, would also be fair game for military action. I doubt it, because the realpolitik and the military exigencies dictate otherwise.
If we are talking about international terrorism, let us switch to another part of the world. What do we say to those who support $1.8 billion being dedicated to the fight against the FARC on the ground of combating drug production in Colombia? Leaving aside the fact that defoliants are being spread—memories of Vietnam come to mind—over the areas controlled by the FARC and have infected more than 10,000 Ecuadorians, and that the Brazilian Government will not allow the Colombian army to cross the border in pursuit of alleged FARC supporters, we must consider that that money is being used to support elements within the Colombian Government and its supporters in the Colombian establishment who finance the right-wing death squads and are more involved in the drug trade than the FARC is. We are opening an enormous can of worms. We are told that action is being taken on that matter, but I wonder how consistent it is.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the military dangers. We seem to be using traditional modes of warfare to deal with, in the jargon, an asymmetrical threat. I am unclear, and hope for illumination, about whether the bombing is intended to break the Taliban and bring them to the bargaining table or to prepare for ground troops to go in. If it is the former, I presume that it is already failing, because there are no signs, after a second week, that the Taliban are breaking up and are prepared to hand over bin Laden—even if they knew where he was.
If the bombing is to prepare for ground troops, we will shortly have the snows upon us, so it is a preparation for a very long haul indeed. I have not yet seen the publication on objectives that has been placed in the
1104
Library, but when I do I shall examine the objectives closely in the context of what I supposed was to be a short-term military action in Afghanistan.
Intelligence is also very important. Al-Qaeda has been set up as a deliberately nebulous cell system in which normal modes of intelligence such as electronic eavesdropping do not appear to work. Given the signal failure of the intelligence services to do anything to prepare for the terrible events of 11 September—I did not expect them to know the detail—I wonder how much better informed we are about the present disposition of al-Qaeda. How good is our intelligence, because that is the basis on which we must judge the military action that is taking place? I fear that we are literally and metaphorically shooting in the dark.
My greatest concern is the voice of those who wish to widen the war. The way in which elements in the American Administration have sought to shape an agenda that is dramatically different from that of the British Government is no secret. I would like to put on record my support and admiration for the Prime Minister's attempts to rein in those who wish to widen the war aims to include those other countries.
On British television on the night of 11 September, Richard Perle, the chairman of the Defence Review Board—a not uninfluential position—and a man formerly known by the sobriquet "the Prince of Darkness" urged that we ought to widen our aims beyond Afghanistan. He named those other countries that he felt should be the object of our military ire, including Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya. Subsequently, that has been reinforced by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte and others who would be fairly described as fully paid-up members of the hawkish tendency within the present Administration. Our Prime Minister has his hands full in trying to counteract that within the alliance.
I do not see that as an anti-American comment; quite the reverse. I wish all power to the elbow of Colin Powell, who seems to be trying to pursue a far broader and more consensual path in resolving these admittedly difficult issues.
We have to be patient and cautious in how we deal with the matters facing the alliance. My mind races to my reading, many moons ago, of Thucydides on the Peloponnesian war. While Pericles carved his name out for posterity with fine and warm words that have gone down through the ages, I recall the words at the same time of King Archidamus, the leader of the Spartan league, who, in a typically laconic speech, said:
"slow and cautious may be seen as wise and sensible."
I do not have to remind all the erudite Members who surround me that the Spartans won that war. These should be the watchwords for the alliance as we go down this difficult path: slow and cautious.
7.12 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: Having heard the concise and cogent speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the reception from Labour Back Benchers to the speech of the Foreign Secretary, I am not sure whether there is more support for the Government's position from Opposition Members than from Labour Members. However, the robustly pro-American contribution of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) has perhaps put me right on that point—but who knows?

1105
Let us suppose that news was brought to the House now that bin Laden had been captured, in the phrase of President Bush, "dead or alive". Would that bring to an end the current anti-terrorist conflict, as it is best described? The answer clearly is no, for at least three reasons.
First, the American Government have made it clear that their aims in the counter-terrorist struggle are not restricted to the capture of bin Laden, dead or alive. Having heard the statements of the Home Secretary and the Chancellor yesterday, and the Foreign Secretary's speech today, I believe that the British and American Governments are at one on this. Clearly, the capture of bin Laden would not bring the anti-terrorist conflict to an end.
The second reason is that the humanitarian effort in Afghanistan would clearly continue. Now that the Government have begun to undertake that commitment, I do not believe that they would renege on it. Of course that humanitarian effort would be impeded by the Taliban, so the conflict must continue in that second sense.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is a fundamental truth that the west remains as open to terrorist attack today as it was on 11 September. Mercifully, we have, so far, largely been spared such events in this country, but we have no guarantee that such events will not happen over the next six months, year or period of years to come. In short, to use one of the Government's own phrases, we are clearly in this for the long haul. I believe that the public are beginning to note that now, although it has always been the case.
Hon. Members may detect the first signs that a minority—I stress that it is a minority—of public opinion is beginning to seem uncertain and somewhat confused. Why is this so? There are many reasons. We live in a consumer society in which people expect things to be done quickly. We also live in a society dominated to a degree by the media—in which I once worked—and a society in which questions are put to the Government, of whatever composition, all the time. The Government are open to all sorts of probing and piercing questions that can cause public doubt and division. Finally, civilian deaths have begun sadly to occur. I can say no more on that than was expressed eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). These are the reasons that help to explain why there is a certain mood of public doubt that did not exist a week ago.
I wish to apply all of these matters to my constituency which—according to the Muslim Council of Great Britain—contains the largest proportion of Muslim voters in any Conservative-held seat. As has been the case throughout the country, there have been racist and Islamophobic attacks in High Wycombe, which should be utterly condemned. I pay tribute to Mr. Ranjit Dheer, the chair—as he would style himself—of the local Commission for Racial Equality, who last week drew a fine balance between condemning such attacks and seeing them in their correct proportion. It is fair to say that, so far, things have gone reasonably well in terms of race relations and how they have been affected by the conflict, although I would not wish to be complacent.
1106
Now that the mood among a section of the public may have changed, it is right to ask what could happen if things went wrong or if there were a terrorist incident here of the kind that I have described. One thing is vital. Whether we are black or white, Muslim or Christian—or of no faith at all—we are all in this together. I urge all my white constituents—I cannot find a more convenient phrase—to think about the perspective from which the Muslim community sees the conflict. The Muslim community is of course utterly condemnatory of the attacks of 11 September, but they see them in a different context from the majority of my constituents. They are especially worried about the situation in Pakistan and what could happen to the Government there if things go wrong.
Many of my constituents come from Kashmir and apply to Kashmir the same standards that they see the west apply to the situation in Northern Ireland and the middle east. They are highly critical of the west for not paying Kashmir as much attention as it has sometimes paid to other issues. I scarcely need add that they have a particular point of view on the middle east and are affected by the very tense relations between the Muslim world and the west. I often think that the Muslim world feels at a recent disadvantage, having been for many centuries—I use the next word in a generalised sense—"ahead" of the west in the middle ages and other times.
It is also important for the Muslim community—if I may say so without appearing to lecture or patronise that community—to understand the point of view of those of us who have lived longer in the west. The hon. Member for Waveney made some telling and poignant points about the collective memory in Britain of the American contribution to this country's freedom in the last century. The Americans helped to save Britain in the first and second world wars Many hon. Members will have memories, however distant or handed down, of lend-lease in the second world war. It is sometimes difficult for the Muslim community to understand the reason behind the ties between Britain and America, but it is important that it should try to do so. Certainly, many Muslims in my constituency have agreed with that point of view when speaking to me.
Conservative Members wish the Government well and support their actions, but I note that over the past few days their command—and that of the American Government—of the situation has seemed a little less certain than it was. We may be heading towards a cloud.
7.22 pm
Mr. Calum MacDonald: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary drew parallels between the choices we face in this crisis and conflict and the choices that were faced in Kosovo. I have strong memories of the debates on Kosovo and the Gulf war. On both occasions, I supported the military action taken by the then Government. Indeed, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, I called for military intervention in Croatia and Bosnia long before the need for it was accepted by other hon. Members and when I was in a tiny minority.
I fully accept the need for the United Kingdom to use military force on occasions when there is no other alternative, when that force is proportionate and targeted, when it is in line with international law and when it has a good prospect of success. However, there is no hiding

1107
the fact that what we are facing in Afghanistan is immeasurably more difficult, more fraught and more complex than in the Gulf or in Kosovo. I believe that the action is right, as long as it continues to be targeted and proportionate. It also has a good chance of success, as long as we are clear headed about our goals, but we must be honest about the scale and the difficulty of what lies ahead.
Intervention in the former Yugoslavia was always going to be fairly straightforward. Tackling the Serbian paramilitary regime was like kicking in a rotten door. Regardless of the Yugoslav army training that many people mentioned or the considerable weaponry at the disposal of the paramilitaries, no real deep self-belief was felt underneath their nationalist bravado. When they were confronted by determined western intervention, they collapsed. The same was broadly true of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In neither case was an extensive or protracted ground campaign eventually necessary.
In the case of the terrorist network we face today, however, and especially given the protection it receives from the Government of Afghanistan, the situation is very different. The terrorist network has no lack of self-belief. On the contrary, we face an enemy that is confident, even fanatical, in its views and determined to impose them on the world. That self-belief is the most powerful weapon that the terrorists have and that is why, as several hon. Members have already said, winning this battle will require a battle of minds as well as a military battle.
If it is to succeed, our military campaign must be embedded in and shaped by a much wider political strategy. The military campaign must be accompanied by sustained political initiatives, especially with those countries where the terrorist networks find their sympathy, their support and, of course, their recruits. Those initiatives must involve not only the Governments of those countries but must engage as much as possible with ordinary opinion in those societies.
We face a paradox, because the geographic focus of the military campaign in Afghanistan will be different from the geographic focus of the wider political campaign that has to happen at the same time. The military strategy must remain firmly targeted on the Taliban regime and the bin Laden network. We must be clear that the immediate goals are the removal of the Taliban regime and the destruction of the bin Laden network, because the latter will not happen without the former. Incidentally, I believe that it would be wrong, and indeed foolish—as several hon. Members have already said—to widen the military goals further and to consider any new action against the Iraqi regime.
The focus of the wider political strategy that accompanies the military conflict must be the middle east, to tackle the Arab-Israeli conflict and to try to end the dangerous hostility between the Arab world and the west. We must drain the swamp of discontent and frustration that feeds that hostility, which is based on decades of economic and political failure in those states. That will require an economic—as well as political, ideological and cultural—engagement with the Arab world on a scale that we have not envisaged before.
We are used to thinking of the middle east as an area in which American interests are most obviously engaged and in which European Governments are largely spectators. However, Europe could be said to have an
1108
even bigger stake than the US. The Islamic states of the middle east are Europe's nearest neighbours. The Arab world is our backyard, not America's. Of course, we in Europe are also the backyard of the Arab world, which is why some 20 million Muslims now live in the European Union. For that reason, we cannot allow US interests alone to dictate western policy in the middle east and the wider Arab world. That is not an anti-American sentiment. Indeed, I lived for eight years in that country and still have close connections with it. We must have a genuine partnership between the US and Europe that involves a fundamental re-analysis of our policies towards the middle east, including our relationship with states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. That does not mean that we should turn our backs on those Governments or abandon them, but the present policy is unsustainable and we must try to find a new way forward.
I warmly welcome the effort that the Government are putting into the middle east peace process and the meeting with President Arafat yesterday. However, we must have a collective European effort if it is to have a real impact. It must also be sustained and pursued beyond the immediate horizon of the conflict in Afghanistan.
I also applaud the way in which the Government have gone about fulfilling their humanitarian obligations to the refugees in Afghanistan. Particular credit must go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development for the way in which she has raised this matter and pursued it on an international stage.
In addition to relieving the immediate humanitarian need in Afghanistan, we should also consider the wider need in the region. There have been reports of malnutrition, and there is the prospect of hunger in bordering states such as Uzbekistan. That must also be covered by the humanitarian effort.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the post-conflict political goal in Afghanistan. I support the idea that the Taliban should be replaced by a broad-based Government under UN auspices. It is desirable that the political structure to emerge in Afghanistan after this conflict should bring stability, economic progress and sensible law to that country. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must not walk away from Afghanistan after the conflict has ended, but it is even more important that we do not walk away from the middle east.
Our post-war political aims in Afghanistan are desirable and correct, but we must not forget that the main, long-term political effort must be focused elsewhere in the middle east. Unless we make progress in that region, we will be back in this position inside a decade. We missed the opportunity that arose after the Gulf war, and we are suffering the consequences. We must not miss that opportunity again.
7.31 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: I come to the debate with little experience of foreign affairs, but I have had five weeks experience of explaining recent events to two children aged five and seven. Along with millions of fathers, in this land and many others, I have faced the challenge of explaining and rationalising to my youngsters what has happened to humanity in the wake of the events in New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Afghanistan. There is nothing more critical than the eyes of a child.

1109
I have therefore attempted to rationalise in my own mind recent events, and especially the role of the coalition in the past few days and weeks. I consider the coalition's role to have three aspects, each of which has a critical part to play in winning the conflict. It is important that the coalition remains focused on the target that has been set. That target is Afghanistan, and more specifically the Taliban regime. We must not be diverted into seeking a wider remit throughout the middle east until the time is right. The coalition's first target is to find and bring to justice Osama bin Laden. Many hon. Members from all parties have stated already that that is a challenge in itself, but the coalition accepts that it has to play a complicated role.
I commend the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for bringing to our attention the lack of objective statements to the House in the past few days. That omission does not reflect well on the Government, especially when it comes to maintaining the coalition that exists in this Chamber on this very complicated matter. Moreover, the project will last a long time. As the Foreign Secretary noted earlier, it will not be over in days or weeks. We must manage expectations and prepare the British people for that. They are entitled to a rational explanation of the duration of the expedition that is under way, and to a realistic assessment of the demands that will be placed on this country, and on others.
The second objective of the coalition is to return stable government to Afghanistan. It cannot be acceptable that in many conflicts over the past few decades, we have left the theatre of conflict in a poorer state than when we found it. That cannot be allowed to happen in Afghanistan. We have a critical role to play in introducing an inclusive and fair administration to Afghanistan. It is tempting to foresee an easy solution to the question of the post-Taliban regime, but I respectfully suggest that the easiest solution in that context might not be the fairest or the most inclusive.
The coalition's third—and equally important—objective has to do with the humanitarian effort in that part of the world. Many hon. Members today have noted that the aid now reaching people there amounts to 500 tonnes per day. That is nowhere near an acceptable amount. We have little time left in which to accelerate provision, and time is against us. I consider the response to be pitifully inadequate, as I understand that it amounts to only one seventh of the amount needed to maintain a population threatened by the onset of winter. I look to the Government for some reassurance that they accept the fact that the war will be won as much by the aid convoys as in the air. Some people have estimated that as few as four weeks remain to make a significant impact in that regard.
In addition, it is important that we manage people's expectations, both in our constituencies and in the wider world, about how long the campaign will last. It is likely to last months or years, not weeks. The challenge is to maintain the high level of support that exists in the country. I do not agree with the view expressed today that there is a great groundswell of doubt about the legitimacy of the action being taken. My experience is that support for the action being taken by our airmen and troops is resolute and strong, rather than doubting and dubious.
1110
However, we must manage expectations, especially when it comes to explaining that the action is a means to an end, and that that end is the end of the Taliban regime.
I believe that this war is the second media war. We must accept that much of that manipulation of the expectations of people in the UK will be done outwith this Chamber—by CNN, the BBC, and so on. Two images prevalent over the past days and weeks have presented a false picture of the unfolding conflict. First, as happened in connection with Kosovo, we are presented with images of smart bombs and laser precision. Although we have those capabilities in our armoury, the dangerous impression is given to people that the conflict is clinical and clean. If we try to convince our constituents that that is the case, we will be misleading them. The conflict is complicated, and is not a matter of laser precision. Lasers may play a part in it, but the conflict will remain dirty. It will no doubt get worse as time goes on.
Secondly, we are presented with images of destruction and so-called collateral damage that contrast starkly with notions of laser-guided bombs. We must accept that images of destruction are influencing people. There are early signs that members of the al-Qaeda network are now masters of public relations, and that they realise that they have the power to manipulate the media. This week's media tour of a bomb site is part of a worrying trend that will continue to develop in the weeks to come.
We must balance the critical reception of television images of collateral damage with courage in the knowledge that civilian casualties are inevitable. That does not mean that they are in any way acceptable, but I am afraid that in this conflict they are inevitable.
It is important to keep the anthrax threat in proportion. Anthrax is a remarkably difficult part of the armoury with which to deliver any threat to this part of the world. However, it is effective in creating terror, and that is what the terrorists are after, rather than a huge impact. The danger is that images in the newspapers of people with blue suits and helmets give rise to terror in the United Kingdom, and that is a win for the terrorists. We all have a part to play in a dignified and rational response to the anthrax threat, but let us not get it out of proportion, for that would be a win for the terrorists.
Much has been made this evening of the link to the middle east peace process. I listened with interest yesterday to the Prime Minister's comments on a viable Palestinian state. I concur entirely with the views of many in this House that solving the middle east conflict is crucial to this problem. However, we have to be careful about the messages we are sending. Now that Yasser Arafat has come for meetings in London in the aftermath of the atrocities in New York and Washington, we must be careful about how we present the way in which negotiations develop hereafter. This is not about the Palestinian problem, as was shown in the information we were given a couple of weeks ago. This plot was hatched when the middle east peace process was in a promising state. Even at such an encouraging time for the peace process, the al-Qaeda network was plotting this atrocity against the western world. Of course, resolving the peace process in the middle east is important, but there is a danger that risk and reward will become connected in the minds of the terrorists.
I remain committed to support for the Government's position. We believe that their response is proportionate and just. Earlier this week, my five-year-old asked me

1111
whether wars were okay. It was one of the most difficult questions I have been asked during the past six weeks. I responded with a wee bit of politicians' faff—a bit of flannel. Ultimately, after rationalising things in my mind, it came down to the fact that although not all wars are just, this is a just war.
7.44 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I apologise for the sound quality of this contribution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, although unwell, I wanted to contribute to a very fine debate, and I am grateful to you for allowing me to do so.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is not in his place, made a fine and thoughtful speech. The Conservative party must be well off indeed if such a man can be on their Back Benches. However, in praising his speech I take issue with a fundamental error that he made.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to describe his visit to Ground Zero in the awesome way that he did. He was right to talk about the sight, the taste and the smell of what he found there. He was wrong, however, to say that the crime committed on 11 September was of a dimension that has never been seen before. I submit that that error of analysis leads us to the current juncture and is intrinsic to the weakness of our position internationally. No one could have said that if they had walked with me through the ruins of Beirut in 1982 where, for week after week, General Sharon reduced an Arab capital city to ashes. He presided over a massacre in two Palestinian refugee camps the like of which had not been seen since the second world war. The stench of dead men, women and children pervaded the whole of the western part of the city of Beirut. The terror instilled by the fragmentation and phosphorus bombs, the fuel-air explosives, the napalm and the butchery in the camps remains a potent factor in the lives of the Lebanese and Palestinian people to this day, almost 20 years later.
I accept that the right hon. Member for Horsham believed what he said to be true. That is the point. It is because what happened in America is being invested with so much more value and horror than equally horrific things that have happened in Arab and Muslim countries that our position is so weak and difficult internationally.
I was not going to mention this, but as the Foreign Secretary scolded us so in his rather schoolmasterly way in his opening comments, may I say that there are no supporters of the Taliban or bin Laden on our side of the argument? In fact, the only supporters of the Taliban are in the Government's coalition. It contains the only countries which, until a few days ago—and, in one case, until now—maintain diplomatic relations with the Taliban and with the Arab Afghans, to whom I shall return, who are the core problem in this conflict.
The American and British Governments invented the Taliban. I do not say that to score points, although that is irresistible for those of who stood in the Chamber and bored the House stiff with warnings of the dark night that would ensue under those holy warriors—those freedom fighters—whom the American and British Governments were arming, financing and training. After all, bin Laden's guards were trained in what can only be described as a terrorist training camp near Fort William by the Special Air Service of the British Army. So there are no
1112
supporters of the Taliban or bin Laden among my right hon. and hon. Friends. To sketch out a simplistic argument saying that there is no alternative, as was done from the Dispatch Box today, is a grave error. In politics, there is seldom only one alternative. There is seldom no other way to skin a cat than the way advanced by the Government.
I rise to speak against the iron consensus of the three Front Benches. It is clear that they have their forces here this evening behind their position. I hope that they are not fooling themselves that their voters and supporters do not feel great unease about and considerable opposition to the course on which they have embarked.
After all, even if the opinion polls are correct, my friends and I speak for about 10 million people in this country. They are Labour and Liberal Democrat voters and, judging by my postbag, they are also Conservative voters. Let us not imagine that that iron consensus really speaks for the whole country, as anyone who has read a correspondence column in a serious newspaper, has listened to a phone-in programme on a serious radio show or seen the growing demonstrations—not only in this country, but 250,000 people in Italy on Sunday and 500,000 people in India on the same day—will know.
Neither should the Government believe—this is an even more serious error—that the support of juntas, potentates and western-dependent leaders for their course of action represents opinion in the countries that are under the heel of those juntas, potentates and dictatorships. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening praise someone called President Musharraf. He appointed himself as President. He is a military dictator who seized power and imprisoned for life the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan.
As was stated admirably clearly by one hon. Member on the Opposition Benches, 83 per cent, of the people of Pakistan entirely oppose the policy of the self-appointed President of Pakistan and yet he has been praised here for his courage. Courage in what? In usurping power from the elected Government and ramming through a policy that is opposed by 83 per cent. of the people he governs? Apart from the questionable morality of that policy, it is hardly a stable basis for a coalition.
If this conflict stretches, as it seems it must, through a difficult winter, with large numbers of casualties through hunger and for other reasons, there is a real danger that Pakistan will be tipped into what I would call a Talibanisation of its politics. I do not need to remind the House that that Talibanised Pakistan would be a nuclear-armed Pakistan.
That is the truth. We have assembled in a coalition for "enduring freedom" some of the least free countries in the world. It is their lack of freedom that contributes to the swamp of grievance and injustice that is felt by many in the Islamic world—a swamp from which the monstrous mutations who created the havoc and destruction on 11 September came.
Listening to the Foreign Secretary as he swung across the present world position, one would not have gained any smattering of an understanding that this war is going extremely badly. Frankly, in the no doubt unintentional misreading of the findings of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Doha, the Foreign Secretary did not tell the House that the Governments of the Islamic community beseeched the Americans and British to avoid civilian casualties. Nor did he mention the finding of the

1113
Foreign Ministers of the Arab League, who declared, in an echo of NATO Ministers, that any subsequent attack on any Arab country would be regarded as an attack on all Arab countries. I mention that because it is clear from a cursory reading of the newspapers on Sunday that Afghanistan is not the only target in this coalition against international terrorism.
I accept that the British Government have been making noises that would tend to restrict the conflict to Afghanistan—I do not know if it is because some hard cop, nice cop/good cop, bad cop routine is being played out or whether it is genuine, and frankly it does not matter. However, the decision over
"which snakes in the swamp",
to quote Richard Perle, the United States military goes after will be made not in London, in Downing street, but in the United States. If the US decides to launch an attack on an Arab country or Arab countries, it will pitch us from what is shaping up to be a disaster into an international catastrophe.
Why do I say that the war is going so badly? In every war we are told that the bombardment is aimed only at military targets. We are told that the targets are being scientifically and forensically calibrated and that the weaponry is of a new generation that will minimise collateral damage. In every conflict in which that charade is played out it proves to be absurd, as subsequent examination of the accuracy rates of the ordnance that was fired and dropped and the most cursory examination of casualty wards in the countries attacked makes clear. In this conflict, it is more absurd than in any other recent conflict.
Do you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that one of the main weapons being deployed against the cities of Afghanistan—the poorest country in the world—is the B52 bomber? Indeed, in some cases it is the very same aeroplanes that carpet-bombed Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. That is what a B52 bomber does. It does not even pretend to be forensic, laser-guided or targeted. It is a large aeroplane that opens its bomb doors out of which fall huge piles of high explosives. The poorest country in the world, Afghanistan, is being bombarded 24 hours a day, with a brief pause in a mockery of religious acknowledgement during the daylight hours of Friday. There has been a 10-day round-the-clock, massive bombardment of a country which before the conflict started was best described as being on the verge of the stone age.
I was in a debate in Trinity college, Dublin, on Thursday with a very brave woman—Marie Colvin, who is a supporter of the war and a journalist on that most doveish newspaper The Sunday Times, whose eye was gouged out in Sri Lanka recently. A heroic war correspondent, she ridiculed the idea that we are bombing military targets in Afghanistan and was in a good position to do so as someone who has spent many weeks there. She ridiculed the idea that we would be attacking command and control centres at Kabul airport, as the Defence Secretary said in his press conference the other day. She laughed at that, saying, "I've been in Kabul airport and the airport building is practically a mud hut that can only receive incoming phone calls." That area is being bombed, we are told, again and again. She ridiculed
1114
the idea that Afghanistan could have enough military targets for even one day's bombing, never mind 10, 20, 30 or 40, or that one could bomb Afghanistan round the clock and not be killing large numbers of innocent Afghan civilians.
This will be my final point, as many hon. Members wish to speak. This war is being waged on the wrong target. The attack on 11 September has nothing to do with the Afghan people. None of the terrorists who attacked America were Afghans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, the attack was planned from European and north American bases. The Afghan people have been hijacked by the Afghan Arab formations of extremists, paid for by Saudi Arabia during the war against the Najibullah Government, armed with American weapons and, as I said, even trained in our own country. It is the Afghan Arab terrorists who flew out of that swamp of grievance that I talked about. It is not that the Taliban are shielding bin Laden: it is the other way around. Bin Laden's forces are the only organised force in the whole country with money and with the logistical ability to run themselves as a quasi state, so to pound mercilessly the civilian population of Afghanistan is morally grotesque. To expect to keep international opinion on one's side with the equivalent of Mike Tyson in a ring with a five-year-old child, beating it mercilessly round after round, is ridiculous beyond words. If we leave morals aside and talk only about efficacy, we see the real danger in what we are doing.
In my speech of 14 September, I warned that if we embarked on an unwise course we would create 10,000 bin Ladens. Does anyone watching the flames, from Kuala Lumpur to Karachi, from Quetta to Jordan to Oman where our own forces are—where the biggest demonstration in the country's history took place last week—to the streets of all the Arab capitals, think that I was exaggerating and that from that great mass of anger there will not come 10,000 bin Ladens? I submit that the course of action on which we are embarked and in which I predict we will still he involved next year—perhaps next year at this time—with casualties beyond imagination risks becoming the very third world war that the bin Laden fanatics set out to achieve with their attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September.
8.2 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: It is always a difficult task to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who always speaks with such passion and determination. Although I do not agree with everything that he said, he speaks for a valid view that exists—quite rightly—in all three political parties and among those people who do not subscribe to any political party. It is a view that we would be wise to listen to, because the hon. Gentleman has direct experience in these areas.
As a spokesman from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, it is also difficult for me to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in a debate where he has made one of the opening speeches. He, too, speaks with passion, conviction and eloquence and it is sometimes difficult to follow him.
Through the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, I thank the Ministry of Defence for keeping me and the Conservative spokesman up to date on events. Yesterday,

1115
I attended a briefing with the three service chiefs and the Secretary of State which was extremely useful. It enabled us to put into some context the military aims of the Government and the coalition that has been assembled. At that briefing one thing was clear: the action in which we are engaged could take a long time—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin pointed out. Tonight, I do not want to speculate on the level or degree of action, on the tactics that may or may not be used or even on the equipment that might be used. There are enough armchair generals filling our television and radio stations doing that. However, it is right, as Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of defence staff, said, that we could be in for some long action.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: As regards the length of that action, does the hon. Gentleman support the call made by one of his spokesmen, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), that there should be a pause for humanitarian aid to be brought into the theatre?
Mr. Keetch: As I have just said, we should not speculate on the degree, intensity or movement of that action. I simply suggest to the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow morning he reads in Hansard my speech and the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife.
Last week, I said in the House that protection against civilian casualties—in Kabul as well as in New York and London—is for us a duty. However, we have to accept that in any military action—no matter how well targeted we believe it might be, and whatever the sophistication of the equipment we might use—there will be civilian casualties. War is not some kind of Nintendo game that is played by merely pressing buttons: it involves death. In the planning that has taken place at the Ministry of Defence and, I hope, at the Defence Department in the Pentagon and at Tampa, I am sure that every effort has been made to minimise the casualties to which action by our armed forces might lead. However, we should remain vigilant, in that securing targets from distant satellites and aircraft can sometimes prove mistaken.
It has been said before, and it is worth repeating, that our armed forces are some of the best in the world. Indeed they are. Whether they are in Macedonia or Sierra Leone, in the Gulf or simply fighting foot and mouth, they are some of the best trained in the world. The Prime Minister spoke today about public services, and we should remember that the members of Her Majesty's armed forces are also our public servants. We should be proud of them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin spoke about Pakistan. I am glad that Colin Powell has recently been in Pakistan. I am also particularly glad that Chairman Arafat was in London yesterday. He met my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who expressed to him our support for the Government's effort to put the middle east process further up the agenda. It is not true to suggest that American foreign policy in the middle east, or anywhere else in the world, justifies in any way the events of 11 September. That is grotesque. However, it is true to say that if, as a result of those grotesque efforts, there is an impetus to increase the momentum of the peace process that could be a good thing. That is something that
1116
will be supported by all of us in the House. It would be opposed by only one man: Osama bin Laden. He does not want to see that peace process succeed. He is the one person who desperately wants to bring the middle east into the catastrophe that we heard about earlier. Although I may not agree with all that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin has said recently, he and I both want to stop that catastrophe and agree that bin Laden wants to see it happen.
Maintaining that international coalition—that worldwide consensus—is incredibly important. It is the most important thing that we have to do. That is why I share the concerns expressed on both sides of the House about talk of extending the military action beyond Afghanistan. We should do what we are doing at present. Let us get that right before we start talking about other targets or other countries. I particularly welcomed the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
During the past 10 days, I have spoken to a number of people about what is going on. I spoke to someone who was involved in the training to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin referred. I received an interesting e-mail from Mr. Mark Evans. For 12 years he was a civil servant—a defence analyst who worked in the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Department of Defence. He is a former member of the Conservative party and was chairman of the Bow Group defence committee for some time.
Mr. Nigel Evans: A great man.
Mr. Keetch: Indeed, he is a great man-he has joined the Liberal Democrats. He said:
"What is needed in the current situation are calm, sensible actions, designed to alleviate Muslim fears and isolate terrorist individuals."
I agree with him entirely. That, by and large, is certainly what we support and what the Government and the coalition aim will involve, because it is understood that the problem will not be solved by military action alone.
The huge humanitarian effort about which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park spoke so eloquently is needed. Diplomatic action and financial action are needed, as are the legal and extradition changes, which is why Liberal Democrats said yesterday in response to the Government's various statements that we shall support the necessary action. We need to carry out the kind of long-term intelligence work that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned. However, I must tell him that we shall not be able to make judgments about that intelligence work because of its very nature. As has been said before in quoting what an IRA terrorist said after the bombing, the intelligence community has to get it right every time, but the terrorist only needs to get it right once.
I shall not speak for much longer because many other hon. Members wish to speak, but it is important that time be spent now on beginning to plan what kind of Afghanistan should exist when the action ends. Far too often, the west has wandered in, intervened, done something and then wandered out. We must not do that this time. Whatever the shape and future of Afghanistan after these events, it must not simply be the preserve of one group—whether the Tajiks, the Uzbeks in the north or the Pashtuns in the south. The former king may have a role to play—I hope that he has—but whatever the

1117
outcome, it must involve international security and the UN. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West was right when he said in The Times on Saturday:
"Faced as we are with the menace of global terrorism, which endangers all nations and all governments, our protection lies in an international consensus."
My party has always been an internationalist one. That is why we support this international action now, and why we look forward to an international resolution in the future.
8.12 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I agree with much of what he said, but I shall take a different approach. I want to deal with four points that are essential for a sustained peace. I have not yet read the objectives document, but the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has seen it, says that it does indeed refer to the boundaries of the conflict being those of Afghanistan and that the conflict will be pursued within international law.
Before I make my four points, it would be disingenuous of me if I did not tell the House about my stance on the issue. I believe that the perpetrators of the atrocity should be brought to justice, that the quest should involve bringing them to justice and that that should be done within the confines of international law. That is why I support the suggestion that the people who have carried out the atrocities should be tried by an international criminal court.
The first of my four points has been mentioned time and again. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) dwelt on it. It concerns the need to develop, in the peace that follows the conflict, an understanding with the Islamic world. The west, including all of Europe and north America, must engage in a closer relationship with the world of Islam. From that understanding, we can develop a new relationship that can pave the way to a more peaceful world.
This week, I was heartened to note that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had taken the initiative and invited Yasser Arafat to London; I understand that the Foreign Secretary also attended the meeting. I believe that there will be a meeting with Ariel Sharon, which I hope will pave the way towards peace in the middle east. Nevertheless, peace in the middle east can be guaranteed only if the Americans fully support the solution. Without American support, there can be no lasting peace in the middle east.
I also believe that the United Kingdom and the USA must consider a review of their bombing of Iraq. If we are to engage with the Muslim world to begin a new relationship, the bombing of Iraq must be reviewed and we must develop a new dialogue with that country. Those two events have fuelled the undercurrent of unrest in the Islamic world that has led to the terrorist atrocity. What has happened in the middle east does not provide an excuse for the atrocity, but it does begin to explain it.

My second point is that drugs are used not only to raise money but as an instrument of terrorism, and there is evidence to support that fact. My colleagues and I who
1118
sit on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly heard a presentation by the deputy director of Interpol. Some of the information that she gave was quite astounding.
Before I refer to that information, I should like to deal with the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) made about drugs in Colombia and the FARC. Like him, I am sceptical about the Colombian plan. Nevertheless, we can clearly see a difference in the situations in Afghanistan and Europe.
In last week's presentation, we were told that the majority of heroin used in Europe—75 per cent.—comes from Afghanistan and that 3,275 tonnes of heroin were trafficked into Europe in 2000. The transit trail goes either through the former Yugoslavia and Albania or through central Asia, Russia and into Europe. Intelligence shows that several Algerian terrorist leaders were present at a meeting in Albania, which was probably attended by Osama bin Laden and at which they planned the route that the heroin would take through that area into Europe. Although there is conflicting evidence, I believe that that meeting took place some time in 1998.
Another link associates bin Laden with the heroin trail. The brother of one of the leaders of the Egyptian organisation that operates with him led a Kosovo Liberation Army unit during the Kosovo conflict. Evidence clearly shows that the heroin route into Europe goes through areas that were under KLA control and links the trade to Kosovo and Albania. The deputy director of Interpol put that evidence to the civilian dimension of security committee.
My third point relates closely to my fourth. In considering the conduct of the conflict, it is essential that we bear in mind the fact that other central Asian areas face dire problems because of terrorism. For example, the Republic of Uzbekistan is confronting a terrorist movement called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The IMU has made it clear that it opposes democratic secular Governments. In understanding how the conflict could go beyond Afghanistan, we must be aware of the fact that some of the new democracies may be threatened by terrorism.
In that context, NATO must develop a taskforce and its remit should include an anti-drugs activity. It would have to work with the intelligence services of Europe and north America, as well as with organisations such as Interpol. NATO must face up to the challenge because hard drugs are being used as an instrument of terror. Many of my colleagues know from their constituencies that hard drugs sap the strength of a community and break down people's confidence in their police force's ability to protect them. For that reason, hard drugs should be treated in the same was as any other terrorist activity. They threaten our security and should come under NATO's remit.
Finally, in the aftermath of the conflict, we must be aware that people who believe in national missile defence will suggest that it is the solution. Close examination of that system clearly shows that it would make the world a more dangerous place. National missile defence or European ballistic missile defence would halt or even reverse the progress that has been made in the former USSR to reduce nuclear arms. The number of nuclear warheads has fallen to about 5,780 and additional strategic reduction measures will reduce that further to 3,000 by 2007. However, if national missile defence goes ahead

1119
we can expect the Russians to retaliate by not reducing warheads or, indeed, by adding more. That would make the world a more dangerous place.
As other hon. Members want to speak, I conclude by stressing that the west must react positively to the challenge that it will face in the aftermath of the anti-terrorist campaign in Afghanistan. It must harmonise relations between the two great civilisations of Christianity and Islam because that will reduce the threat of terrorist activity. Moreover, as part of the framework of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, a new economic and political relationship with Russia will pave the way for a much safer world.
8.24 pm
Hugh Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I start by adding my support for the Government's handling of the crisis thus far. I wanted to speak not merely to do that but because I believe that we have reached a turning point in the conflict. I asked to speak not because I have any great history as a moralist or the legal expertise of some Labour Members, but simply because when this country last went to war I went as a young soldier of 28 years old. I wanted to bring some of those experiences to bear on the debate.
I pay tribute, as the House might expect, to those in our services, and most critically to their families. In my experience of the Gulf, the most difficult part was what happened at home. When I got back, my parents told me of their many sleepless nights and the many mornings they would turn on the television at 6 o'clock to see the news. All of us in the House should remember that and do all that we can to look after the families of those involved in the action.
I should like to make three points based on my experience 10 years ago. The first is the importance of maintaining a firm diplomatic alliance across many countries. Again, I pay tribute to the Government in their efforts thus far in that direction. Such an alliance is important not only in giving us moral authority but because of the effect on the service men who are called on to carry out the actions. It is worth stating once again, and always in those countries, that the war is against terrorism and not against Islam. That is particularly important in this conflict because there seem to be so many different and varying aims.
The second point that is worth making—it has been made by several Members—is that bombing alone will not solve the conflict. In the very near future, we will have to have a plan for the economic, political and humanitarian reconstruction of Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban. We have seen in a number of stages in Afghanistan's history the penalty for not doing that. It was clearly evident in the Mujaheddin era, when the people of Afghanistan felt that the Americans had let them down badly by helping them to fight the war but not reconstructing their country.
It is easy to foresee—the scenario may arise sooner than we think—the Taliban melting into the hills following a period of heavy shelling. If we are to prevent reprisals as the Northern Alliance sweep down through Kabul, we must have a plan that we are ready to implement. I believe, although I am no advocate of
1120
ground troops, that it will be impossible to influence such a situation without a presence on the ground. I urge the Government to give considerable thought to using the offices of the United Nations to bring some influence to bear on the ground once the Taliban have left. If Afghanistan is to be reconstructed and, therefore, the causes of terrorism removed, a period of political stability is crucial. Like the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), I welcome the intervention of the former king, and I hope that there will be some form of Marshall plan for Afghanistan once the bombing is over.
The third point worth mentioning is the importance of renewed momentum in the middle east peace process. I was delighted to see the Palestinian leader in London yesterday. I believe strongly that we should recognise the right of the Palestinians to a proper and viable state, while at the same time guaranteeing the security of Israel.
I have had great admiration for the state of Israel over many years. I have admiration for the courageous and determined way in which the Israelis forged a state from the wreckage of the second world war. However, they must realise now that they will lose the sympathy of the international community if they believe that the international community's desire for a world free of terrorism presents them with an opportunity to occupy more land. Therefore, I support the Government's desire to add impetus to the middle east peace process. Osama bin Laden's intervention and use of that was a repellant and deceitful hijacking. We can never hope to defeat terrorism while the middle east is in turmoil.
The international dimension is only one aspect of the problem before us. Once the immediate crisis is over, there will be considerable implications for United Kingdom defence and intelligence policy. The first, as everyone has said, will be the need to acknowledge that terrorism has presented a threat on a new scale since 11 September. The Secretary of State for Defence will need to think carefully about the configuration of the armed forces to meet that threat. I was personally involved in the last large-scale defence review, "Options for Change", and I know that much of the thinking that went into that was based on cold war calculations. The balance will have to be altered to meet the new threat. We will need a larger number of lighter forces and greater heavy lift capability. I welcome the news that we are to re-equip our carriers.
Secondly, we will need to expand our intelligence services to meet the threat. We are now in the third phase of terrorism. In the 1960s and 1970s, terrorist groups first started to appear in Europe; there was a pause in the late 1970s, when we came to terms with those groups, but they re-emerged in the 1980s. As we can see in the Provisional IRA, terrorist groups have become far more tightly organised, with active service units comprising four men. Hardly anyone outside those units knows much about them. It is that above all other developments that has caused many of the intelligence problems that face us today. We shall need to adapt our forces and our intelligence services if we are to penetrate terrorist cells in years to come.
Finally, we in this country need to reconsider establishing an integrated disaster recovery plan. I am much impressed by the apparent ease with which authorities in the United States call out the National Guard. This summer, while working with the Kent ambulance service, I was worried to learn that it cannot

1121
operate alongside the police or the fire service: there is no means of common operation. We need to introduce such systems and to ensure that the Territorial Army is involved.
I pay tribute to the Government for their handling of the crisis so far, but I believe strongly that the most difficult phase lies just ahead. Awkward decisions will have to be taken about the political, economic and humanitarian reconstruction of Afghanistan and the international framework within which that can be achieved. If there is one lesson that I draw from history and from personal experience it is that it is always far easier to start a conflict than to bring it to a successful conclusion.
8.33 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: There are, one perceives, three leaders in the world who believe that the bombing of Afghanistan—including the bombing of the pitiful remains of its infrastructure and the death of hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians—is in the interests of their cause and should be a part of their strategy. Those three leaders are first, of course, the President of the United States; secondly, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and perhaps those in NATO who support him; and thirdly, Osama bin Laden himself.
No one should doubt that that psychotic international criminal knows full well—no doubt, it is part of his plan—that with every single bomb that drops on Afghan soil and every cluster bomb and bunker buster that is dropped on a defenceless enemy from 30,000 ft, we sow the dragon's teeth. As in classical mythology, from that soil will emerge not our warriors, but warriors who will fight for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and whose numbers will multiply. Above all, they will be armed with the hatred of the United States which brought them into being. That fact is not lost on our fragile and uneasy allies and neighbours in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who know and have said that the words and actions of the so-called coalition and America have proved collectively to be the biggest recruiting tent for terrorism since 11 September that one could possibly dread.
We began by announcing a war, first, on terrorism. That is an absurdity, as one cannot make war on an abstract noun, although it is possible to make war on most types of syntax, as has occurred since 11 September. As one cannot make war on abstract noun, we were told that we were at war with Osama bin Laden, which endows him with the precise status that he seeks. From being a criminal, he has become a warrior, and he will move on to become a martyr. Having said that we were at war, we then waged it. It is difficult to describe the black pessimism that came over people like myself and many Labour Members when we learned of the method that was going to be employed—large-scale bombing from 30,000 ft. Such bombing creates a precise equation; it removes risk from combatants in the air and imposes it on civilians on the ground.
That is precisely what we did in those dark 78 days in Kosovo, to which I shall return in a moment. The black pessimism that we all felt grew when we learned about the enlistment of the Northern Alliance. Again, the
1122
memory of Kosovo overshadowed us—something which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), in one of his great speeches in the House. described as the dirty dozen. We who remember Kosovo recall the poisonous embrace of the Kosovo Liberation Army. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) pointed out, it has been discovered that 90 per cent. of our heroin comes from Afghanistan, but we could have told people a long time ago that it is brokered, moved and laundered by the KLA, our friends in the south, and it always has been.
I want to say one or two things about Kosovo, which has been employed as a shining example of military intervention and success. As a rewriting of history, that is as depressing as the present war. The operation in Kosovo was a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, largely of our own making. When the treaty of Rambouillet broke down, we decided to bomb a helpless, defenceless and mainly civilian target from 30,000 ft—the same method is being used now. After we started the bombing, we created 500,000 refugees, who were driven from Kosovo by the unleashing of the Serb army; they saw the tracer trails of aircraft and cruise missiles which passed over their heads on the way to Belgrade. The prejudice and anger of centuries was then unleashed.
While all that was happening—as the Albanians in Kosovo were the subject of a murderous assault—three tanks of the Serbian army were destroyed and we were lied to day after day about the degradation of that army. While those Albanians suffered, the largest army force mustered by the west and NATO stood on the borders in Macedonia and did precisely nothing. That is why those of us who remember Kosovo so well blanch at the idea that it is being held up as an example for the current war. We perceive that, as sure as can be, history is repeating itself and that we will see bombing for days and days from 30,000 feet while no intervention whatever is made to save those whom it is affecting.
I do not want to be entirely condemnatory and I certainly wish to be constructive. I should like to make a suggestion that I have already put to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on the action that we should now take, in addition to the cessation of bombing. We must create an international criminal court—a body that would be more important than the sum of its parts. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was not being disingenuous when he said that we did not have an international foreign court. Of course, we need 60 members to set up the international foreign court to which he referred and, unhappily, one of the reasons why we cannot do so is the opposition of the United States.
I am referring not to that court, however, but to one that is comparable to those that were established in The Hague in order to deal with the atrocities in the Balkans and in Arusha in order to deal with Rwanda. It is precisely that sort of court that should be set up now, so that we can signal to the world that we expect and desire a judicial end to the conflict. It is asked why Osama bin Laden should not be tried in America. I can think of a very large number of reasons why it would be highly undesirable for him to be tried by a jury in that country. There are many reasons why that could not happen, and I very much doubt that the Americans wish or hope that it does so.

1123
However, one cannot walk two ways in a conflict such as this. We are told that the attacks were an assault not on America, but on civilisation. For what it is worth, I and many others accept that analysis, but as an assault was made on the international community, it is to that community that the criminal who is responsible should be answerable. No one would doubt that the international court should have an American president. Of course, it should also include Islamic jurists, so that we can say to the Islamic world "This man will be tried in a court of fairness and justice."
Having established the court, we must get the criminal, and I am not suggesting that that will be easy. I have known criminal courts of one sort or another for a very long time and from both sides of the fence. Nobody knows better than me how difficult it is to obtain, track down and arrest dangerous criminals. None the less, we must do it, and it will not be done by bombing civilian targets from 30,000 feet. If I were asked how we should go into Afghanistan or wherever bin Laden is and get him out—I am surprised that nobody has intervened to ask me that question—I would have to answer that I did not know. Unlike an uncomfortably large number of my colleagues, I am not a duvet or eiderdown general. My military training was cursory and utterly useless, but I accept that, as we are reliably informed, we have the finest armed forces in the world. This work is what they are for. It will be hard and there will be military casualties, but nobody begins to suggest that the task should not be undertaken. If we do not go down that road, but continue into the spring the bombing of civilians from 30,000 ft, day after day and month after month, the international support that we have will disappear like the Afghan snows. If that happens, we can stop parroting the idea that we are not at war with Islam, as Islam will be at war with us.
8.45 pm
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I pay tribute to the short but powerful speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I also wish to take issue with a couple of his points.
I believe that the operation is based on intelligence. The aircraft and weapons are as precisely targeted as military technology, and the gallant men of special forces—American and probably British—on the ground will allow.

Although the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) was excellent as usual, his emotive language, which conjures images of B52s, carpet bombing and the weapons pictured on the cover of the Evening Standard, such as Puff the Magic Dragon, give the impression of a campaign in which we are not involved. We are not engaged in the Vietnam war or campaigns in the Balkans; we are prosecuting a different campaign, that has been marked so far by restrained, small and targeted operations against an enemy who has been sought out by some of the best intelligence assets that have ever been deployed.
Let us consider the propaganda aspects, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) mentioned earlier. As a former war correspondent, I hope that I can speak about that with some authority. Any dramatic footage, which will hold the public's attention,
1124
will be used mercilessly. The Taliban have not allowed western camera crews into Afghanistan by mistake. That country is hostile, the Taliban do not favour westerners, and it is difficult to travel inside Afghanistan. Many hon. Members have expressed that much better than I have. Yet television crews are being allowed in to film what is being done.
There is nothing novel about suffering, but it makes compelling television, and good copy in the newspapers and for the radio. It is a weapon that is being used against us as surely as those aircraft were used against the World Trade Centre on 11 September. Why did not we see suffering in America on 11 September? Because there were more dramatic scenes to film. There is nothing novel about watching death and carnage, but the sight of jet airliners flying into buildings is new.
It is worth remembering the extent of the casualties and why we did not see scenes of suffering. Most of those killed on 11 September died instantly; they were not available to be photographed. Their monument is the smoking ruin of the twin towers, which are mute testimony to bin Laden's random butchery.
If we engage in war, we must understand that it is a nasty business. Indeed, this war will be nasty, brutish but, I fear, not short.
I should like to discuss the idea that humanitarian aid is alien to military aims. We have heard about the three British campaigns in Afghanistan in the 19th and early 20th centuries. All were more or less failures. We have heard about the Soviet campaign in the late 20th century. However, we should consider two remarkably successful British counter-terrorist campaigns: the Malaya campaign and the little known Oman campaign. The latter was fought on the Jebel Akh'dar, largely by small numbers of special forces. However, an integral part of both campaigns was humanitarian aid.
The Americans adopted that concept for their campaigns in Vietnam—some would say that they applied it less successfully—and labelled it "hearts and minds". In "milspeak" or army speak, it has gone a stage further and is now called G5. It is an accustomed, accepted and fully understood part of the operational spectrum.
To suspend bombing—to suspend offensive operations—will make the prosecution of G5 operations difficult. No Taliban anti-aircraft gunner is likely to between a fighter or bomber and an aircraft carrying aid. To get humanitarian aid through, and to push forward the boundaries of "hearts and minds", anti-aircraft defences must be degraded. I suggest that the two things are not mutually exclusive.
Then there is the style of operations. There is talk of armchair generals. Heaven knows, I have become something like that, although I have never aspired to be a real general! The maps in the newspapers all show bin Laden's camps—al-Qaeda training areas—conveniently located around the borders of Afghanistan. Why are they there? Because that is all that our intelligence shows us. It is exceedingly difficult for even satellite imagery to get good fixes inside this hostile country; therefore, operations against the Taliban, al-Qaeda or whoever will be relatively simple around the border areas.
However, if we are serious about pursuing our enemies—if we are serious about pursuing bin Laden into his lairs—the time will come when we must establish forward operating bases deep inside Afghanistan. History

1125
tells us that there are three ways in which to operate inside that country: on foot, by donkey and by helicopter. If we accept that most of the operations will involve short-term, hard, quick and relatively clinical strikes, helicopters will have to be forward-based. They do not fly very far: they do not have much endurance, particularly at high altitude—operating in the mountains—and in cold weather. Any forward operating base will have to be secured not by special forces, because they are a precious asset, but by ordinary forces—in the American terminology, "grunts": the same people who fought the Vietnam war, with all the illusions that we covered earlier. That is why elements of Tenth Mountain Division are in Uzbekistan. There is nothing elite about them; they are not special forces.
It will be manpower-intensive. Securing the high ground around any airport that is taken will require infantry, supported by light support weapons and perhaps armour, but definitely helicopters. Then will come the casualties. It should be borne in mind that the campaigns conducted by this country were fought largely by indigenous forces—Sikhs and Gurkhas, troops who knew the country backwards and understood the skill and art of mountain warfare. They found it tough. The pick of Britain's regular Army found it tough. This is a new area—a completely new theatre—for American forces, and they will have a difficult time.
I return to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). Should the Taliban collapse, should they be shattered militarily, should their centre of gravity be destroyed, they will return to what they know best—guerrilla warfare in the mountains—and that is when they are at their most dangerous.
How ready are British troops to stand—I borrow the phrase—shoulder to shoulder with American troops? I hope they are ready. I am delighted to learn that 150 specialist reservists have been called up. That is clearly only the tip of the iceberg, but I am told that those men and women have been asked to volunteer to be compulsorily called up. When they are compulsorily called up, their jobs and livelihood are protected by law, but one or two employers are saying that this is a scam and that these people have in fact volunteered. Industrial tribunal action may be forthcoming. Reservists have not been called up in such numbers before, and there may be difficulties. I want them to be protected from that threat.
I am glad to see that something is being done about the debacle of personal insurance. A soldier currently going through the Reserve mobilisation and training centre just outside my constituency in Nottingham said, "We want to commit ourselves to our country, but we're not sure if our country wants to commit itself to us." We must not allow that to happen. As has been said, we have the finest fighting men and women in the world. We must make sure that they are prepared in the best way that we can, and I wish them godspeed.
8.56 pm
Vernon Coaker (Gedling): It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in what has been an interesting and thoughtful debate encompassing many different points of view. I had heard people say that there would not be much
1126
new to be said, but I have learned a lot from listening to all the points of view. I say that as one who supports the military action.
I listened especially intently to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). I disagree with his views, but he challenges every single one of us who supports military action to think more deeply and clearly about why we support it. This Parliament is sometimes decried as not being the debating Chamber that it once was, but the speeches that we have heard tonight, from both Government and Opposition Members, belie that. We have had an important and passionate debate on an issue that is clearly crucial to us.
I take issue with one point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He said that we had not seen tonight the gung-ho that had been present in previous debates. I have sat in many of the debates, and I have not noticed a gung-ho attitude, because everybody, of all points of view, has recognised the seriousness of what we are debating and the intensity of the arguments that will take place.
I support the military action, not because I want to see us bombing from 30,000 ft and forgetting about it, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said, but because I genuinely do not believe that we have an alternative. Following an attack on our democracy and freedom, an attack not only on the American people but on British citizens and people from many different ethnic groups, we cannot stand by and do nothing. The challenge is what we do about it. I think that the use of force, as pursued by our Government, was the only option available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin is absolutely right to make the point that Muslims in other parts of the world will point to attacks on and outrages against them that no one has done anything about. If he had visited Rwanda, he would have seen a place where horrors occurred that no one did anything about. We should use this outrage to say that whether someone is Muslim or African, or from the north, south, east or west, this marks a turning point in the international order so that one life lost in this way will not be tolerated by the international community. We must use this as an opportunity to look forward to that new order.
I see no alternative to the use of force. It gives me no pleasure to say that. I do not know anything about the armed forces, other than what I have learned from talking to people such as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and others who have a much greater knowledge of the military than me. Like anyone, I am aware of some of the horrors that can be the consequence of bombing that goes wrong. I feel a responsibility, as one of those who support military action; I am sure that we all do. However, the fundamental point is that I see no alternative to the taking of military action to try to stop a repeat of what we witnessed in America a few weeks ago.
Contrary to what others have said, I believe that if we took no action, we would encourage more terrorism. That is a matter for debate between us. From my perspective, I believe that we need to take action to deter terrorism but, in taking the military option, we need to be clear about our aims in Afghanistan. Like other hon. Members, I am worried by some of the signals coining from Washington about an escalation into Iraq and other places.

1127
In terms of Afghanistan, our aims seem to be clear: the destruction of the Taliban and the elimination of bin Laden and his network. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence will reiterate that we want the creation of a new Afghanistan where human rights and the entitlements of everyone are catered for.
Having given my support for military action, I want to say that we need to focus on the humanitarian situation, which was bad before the military strikes and is now clearly worse. In answer to my parliamentary question yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development estimated that there were now 7.5 million people inside Afghanistan who were vulnerable and in need. According to UNICEF, a fifth of those—some 1.5 million—are children under five. In neighbouring countries, a further 4 million people are in need.
We should not be blinded by those statistics. Each represents an individual: a son, a daughter, a child, a mother or a father facing starvation, drought and war. Those of us who support military action must make the loudest demands of our Government for ever more urgent action with respect to humanitarian aid. If we are to demonstrate practically to Muslims in the region and elsewhere the fact that this is not a war against Islam, it is both morally right and an essential means of maintaining the coalition that we somehow get the aid to the people who need it.
I am aware that our Government are giving millions of pounds in aid and that air drops have taken place. However, we must find other ways to deliver aid. My right hon. Friend told me yesterday that she is examining how to open new land routes into Afghanistan for aid convoys from Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. We have talked about the propaganda war. The war is being fought in front of the television cameras and there could be no more powerful image than for this country to ensure that its humanitarian effort is second to none. Some people have called for a pause in the bombing. Others have called for other action. I do not know what would be the best approach, but we must do everything that we can.
I have two final points. First, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will say something about the continuing need to reassure our own people about any risks that they face. I am sure that all hon. Members have had such issues raised with them. Secondly, the international coalition that has been put together to fight terrorism must be maintained when the conflict is over. If we can bring so much energy and passion to fighting the situation in Afghanistan, we should bring the same amount to tackling the broader problems of poverty and conflict in many other regions. If we do that, some good will come from this particular bad.
9.7 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I echo the call by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for us to set our sights on a new Afghanistan. I shall deal later in my speech with his comments about aid being the way to demonstrate that we are not at war with Islam. First, however, I shall deal with the question of civilian casualties, which has—rightly—been raised many times in the debate as a matter of concern.
There is no language that can express what we should say and feel about civilians who are killed, injured or bereaved by our bombs and missiles. That is one reason
1128
why the word "war" is the only way in which to describe what it is that we are doing. I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to reiterate how every care is being taken to avoid civilian casualties. The House should be reminded that the operation has, so far, been extremely limited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed out. It is not remotely as intensive as the bombing campaign undertaken in Kosovo two years ago. Incidentally, in that campaign, as the Foreign Secretary pointed out, the western powers intervened in support of Muslims under attack from their non-Muslim oppressors.
We must, of course, do all we can to minimise civilian casualties. I do not say that they are inevitable, but even with advanced precision weaponry it would be foolish to think that bombing operations could be carried out without risk, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Therefore, we must not allow the possibility of civilian casualties to divert us from our main aim. We know that the Taliban Government will use every conceivable opportunity to maximise the propaganda value of civilian casualties in order to achieve exactly that. The regime that drove its tanks over the televisions it found in people's homes now invites the media in to see only what it wants them to see, while still concealing how much persecution, torture and death it was inflicting on its own people long before 11 September. The Taliban regime all but banned the world's media from its soil before 11 September, but its members have been remarkable converts to the television age in recent days. It is a regime whose soldiers have literally butchered civilians in the streets. It is a regime that has skinned its opponents, and executed women by gunfire in a football stadium that was, ironically, donated by the international community. In that same stadium, men have been strung up from the goalposts to die.
Amnesty International compiled a report into the foul deeds of the Taliban regime. It included reports of women having their hands cut off for wearing nail varnish, and being beaten for showing their faces in public or for trying to learn English. For every Afghan mourning the few deaths that we may have caused—and no one shirks that responsibility—there are thousands more hoping and praying that the sounds of British and American aircraft, bombs and missiles will herald the end of their nightmare by ending the Taliban oppression of the Afghan peoples.
The Taliban claim that one alleged allied mistake killed 200 people. There is every indication that that is the grossest exaggeration. Five weeks after 11 September, thousands of our civilian casualties still lie under the rubble of the World Trade Centre. What concern have the Taliban expressed for them?
From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has said that the conflict would be a long haul, and that it would be hard. So it is proving to be. I therefore start with a plea to all those who, like the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), have urged a halt to the campaign, or some sort of ceasefire. My plea is that we should make such decisions about the future conduct of a war against terrorism on the basis of what we know to be true, not on the basis of what we would like to be true.
I shall list the fundamental facts. First, the Taliban had every opportunity to cease their support for terrorism in the weeks before the bombing began. Secondly, the Taliban

1129
and al-Qaeda are indivisible. Al-Qaeda is an alien force in Afghanistan; its members are predominantly Arab. It is estimated that there are between 5,000 and 10,000 Arab al-Qaeda members who form the backbone—the crack troops—of the Taliban military capability. The Taliban support the terrorists and, in return, the terrorists support the Taliban.
Thirdly, unless we confront the Taliban with military force, they and the terrorists will continue to threaten our people and cities. No one wants war, but those who want peace are left with no option. The Government of the United States, and our own Government, deserve our support.
There are those who urge that the action should stop now, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the cessation of the campaign would cause the Taliban to submit, however much we would want them to. On the contrary: a U-turn in the tactics of the allies now would be a huge boost for the cause of international terrorism. It would be not merely a propaganda victory for the Taliban and al-Qaeda, but it would allow them to recover their effectiveness and enable them to communicate more easily with the outside world. It would also give the terrorists the chance to enhance their operational capabilities, and would be a signal of our weakness in the face of terrorist threats. That would be a monstrous dereliction of our duty.
The allies must continue to pursue the aims with which we started. The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, set out the objectives clearly on the first day of the air offensive, and those were echoed in the Government's paper that was published today. Secretary Rumsfeld set out his objectives in context. He made it clear that military force should merely complement the economic, humanitarian, financial and diplomatic activity that was already under way. He went on to set out six direct objectives for the military campaign, and I hope that the House will bear with me as I quote them in full.
The objectives are to make it clear to the Taliban leaders and their supporters that harbouring terrorists is unacceptable and carries a price; to acquire intelligence to facilitate future operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban regimes which harbour the terrorists; to develop relationships with groups in Afghanistan that oppose the Taliban regime and the foreign terrorists they support; to make it increasingly difficult for the terrorists to use Afghanistan freely as a base of operations; to alter the military balance over time by denying to the Taliban its offensive systems that hamper the progress of the various opposition forces; and—probably most importantly—to provide humanitarian relief to Afghans suffering truly oppressive living conditions.
Those are the objectives, and they are the right objectives. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to use this opportunity tonight to confirm that Her Majesty's Government stand full square behind those objectives and that their paper does not differ from that of the Americans in any material respect. British forces have played an essential role in the strikes, which are crucial to the success of the operation. Yet again, we can take pride in the fact that our forces are showing themselves to be highly professional and able to make a

1130
unique contribution. The House can expect other elements of British forces to be employed as the military campaign develops.
On a wider war, let us not create division where none truly exists. No one wants a wider war. I concur entirely with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that that would make the situation more difficult. However, I also concur with him that if incontrovertible evidence emerged to indict another Government for sustaining terrorism, we must be prepared to follow up the most strenuous diplomatic efforts with the threat of military action if necessary. I fully concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham about the possible origins of the anthrax attacks currently afflicting the United States of America.
Mr. Galloway: Some of us fear the fabrication of evidence that will be presented as incontrovertible. That is why I asked the question earlier of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). There is anthrax everywhere. American companies manufactured and exported it. German companies manufactured and exported it. Armed forces throughout the world have in their armoury anthrax and other biological weapons. Our fear is that when this is over, a fabrication of evidence linking this to Iraq will be brought forward as a new causus belli.
Mr. Jenkin: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's suspicions of the democratically elected leaders of our country, the United States of America or other NATO countries. I do not think that any Government would manufacture a bogus excuse to go to war with another country and another Government. It is time that the hon. Gentleman showed a little faith in the Prime Minister—the leader of his own party—instead of constantly undermining him. I say that with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman.
One of the reasons for resolutely prosecuting the campaign in Afghanistan is to deter other potential terrorist states. It is clear that even the immediate objectives will not be achieved by bombing alone, a point made very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). The Secretary of State has rightly said that all military and other options must be kept open. We must resist the temptation to speculate in public about what those options may be—a luxury that the press enjoys.
I share the view of some in this debate that a sustained deployment of allied ground forces in Afghanistan would be extremely problematic, but I do not press the Secretary of State to close down any option. I do ask him, however, to stress that the objectives of the United States and United Kingdom Governments are political and humanitarian as well as military.
The politics of Afghanistan are notoriously complex. The allies have been wrestling with many questions, and they have been raised in this debate. Who are the emerging figures from the majority Pash tribe around whom new alliances could be created to form the nucleus of a new Afghan Government? How many of the present supporters of the Taliban can be persuaded to abandon them, and what is the best means of persuading them to do so? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) asked, what is the best role for the

1131
United Nations, given that any direct western involvement would strengthen opposition to the anti-terrorist campaign?
We should take heart from Colin Powell's visit to President Musharraf in Pakistan today. They have agreed that any future Afghan Administration must be broad based and must include not only members of the Northern Alliance opposition, but moderate Taliban members, other tribal elders and Afghans who are living outside their country at present. That is evidence of an emerging consensus on the way forward, not a cause for some of the despair that we have heard by any means.
Finally, the humanitarian aid programme is not only vital to achieving those aims, it is a key objective in its own right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) pointed out.
I echo the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, and urge the Secretary of State for Defence to deal with them. Time is extremely short. In perhaps less than five weeks many of the mountain passes will be closed for the winter. That applies in particular in the north and west of the country, where the most acute famine problem already exists. We want the Secretary of State to say this evening that the allies understand the sheer scale of the humanitarian challenge. Even the doubled figures mentioned by the Secretary of State for International Development fall far short of the target identified by the World Food Programme of 55,000 tonnes of food required per month.
Writing in The Guardian today, the emergencies co-ordinator of Christian Aid, Anthony Morton-King, said:
"The World Food Programme estimates that a stockpile of 250,000 tonnes of food is needed in the country within the next five weeks, when the winter snows will cut off large parts of the country … Transporting these vast piles of grain would require 715 trucks full each day over the next five weeks. On some days last week just four trucks were arriving in Afghanistan."
That aid is needed not just to alleviate a huge humanitarian problem but to forestall an even more massive one. If the people in the villages run out of food, they will walk. That means not only the abandoning of their farms so that there is no planting of fresh crops in the spring, but that half of them are likely to die as they attempt to reach refugee camps often hundreds of miles away. If the allies are to avoid a mass exodus of people from the villages, we must collectively take action now. Perhaps this is an opportunity for countries that are unable to contribute to the military effort to help to confront the humanitarian crisis. Please will the Secretary of State deal with those matters when he replies to the debate? That is the way to demonstrate that this is not a war against Islam.
Talk of the reconstruction of Afghanistan after the removal of the Taliban and al-Qaeda will be empty words unless the military and humanitarian actions are prosecuted with the same vigour and resolve. Provided the Government do so, on behalf of the Opposition I can pledge our continued support for the action they are taking.
9.23 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I confess that I am becoming a little worried about following the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) as he appears to like the sound of my voice more than that of his own.
1132
The United Kingdom has played a full part in the coalition's military operations from the moment that they began on 7 October. On two occasions, Royal Navy submarines have launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against terrorist training camps—most recently, last Saturday. As the House is aware, the United Kingdom authorised the United States to use the base at Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean. Since 9 October, the Royal Air Force has flown almost 50 reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling sorties in support of American strike aircraft, including eight sorties last night.
I must emphasise how important those sorties are. Air operations depend on them. About 10 RAF aircraft are involved—the United States particularly requested those in view of the RAF's high level of expertise in that field. Our VCIO and Tristar air-to-air refuelling aircraft fly for several hours at a time, including over Afghan airspace, refuelling up to 14 strike aircraft on each sortie. They are playing a crucial role in the continuing operations.
In addition, we have deployed Canberra PR9 reconnaissance planes. These aircraft provide a capability that few other countries can match. They will be used not simply for military purposes, such as targeting and battle damage assessment; we will also use them to plot precisely the movement of the many refugees still stranded inside Afghanistan as they try to flee the Taliban regime. That will enable us to provide important information to the World Food Programme and others who are delivering humanitarian aid, allowing them to bring some relief from hunger inside the country.
We have also authorised the call-out of a small number—about 150—of our reservists in support of the operations in response to the terrorist activities in the United States. Initially, at least, this will be on a voluntary basis. We will employ those skilled men and women in augmenting headquarters and other specialist positions, mostly in this country. Many of them—including photo-analysts and interpreters—will serve in the defence intelligence staff. Others will support the Royal Air Force, both in the United Kingdom and overseas.
The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) raised several concerns about that process. I can assure him that employers' attitudes and concerns will be taken fully into account and, indeed, that civilian employers are being contacted to gain their agreement to release reservists for military service. I hope that he will accept from me that this will not lead to employment tribunal cases. If he has examples of likely difficulties, I should certainly like to hear from him and we shall thoroughly investigate those matters. We have no wish to make life difficult for either the reservists or their employers.
As regards the interest shown in weather issues by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—at least in the previous debate on this subject—we have also authorised the call-out of members of the mobile meteorological unit. These men and women, who normally work for the Meterological Office, will provide important operational and tactical meteorological information to our deployed forces.
I want to single out the many talents and high quality of our reserve forces. The new demands build on the equally valuable efforts of reservists currently serving in the Balkans, the Gulf and Sierra Leone. They play an invaluable role in each of those theatres, providing considerable expertise to augment existing members of the regular armed forces.

1133
The House has consistently supported our armed forces, particularly when the Government have taken the difficult decision to deploy them on operations. I want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their many kind words about our service men and women. We ask an enormous amount of our armed forces. Their performance over the last few days and weeks, as part of the global effort to counter international terrorism, is further proof of their abilities. Our armed forces are, without doubt, among the best in the world. I know that the House will join me in offering them our full support.
I make no apology for repeating my commitment to the families of service personnel. It is not easy for them when their close relatives deploy overseas on operations. We value the enormous contribution that they make to the United Kingdom's defence community. I was particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) for the personal observations that he made on that subject.
I also thank the House and the country at large for their support for the actions that we are taking. Sometimes, we are faced by critical events that unite us—a point well made by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), earlier in the debate. The attacks of 11 September and their aftermath are one example of such a situation. This support, from Members of Parliament and members of the public alike, means a great deal to our armed forces. On their behalf, let me say that I am grateful for it and for the spirit in which it has been offered.
In the light of the observations made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I emphasise that we will not take for granted the support of the House. Indeed, that is why we have already held four debates on this vital subject, in which all Members have had opportunities to set out their views.
Mr. Salmond: Is the Secretary of State able to confirm or deny the reports in later editions of the Evening Standard this evening that, following the discussions that Colin Powell has held in Pakistan, there is a suggestion of a deadline of 17 November—the onset of Ramadan—for the bombing phase of the military action?
Mr. Hoon: I have not seen the late editions of that newspaper, and I am not aware of any particular deadline. I shall deal with some of the military strategy in due course, but I think it highly unlikely that that report is accurate.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has explained that our strategy in response to the events of 11 September contains a number of different elements, embracing action in the diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, legal and military spheres. Our immediate aims have been stated clearly. First, we want to bring those guilty of perpetrating the attacks on 11 September to account. Secondly, we want to ensure that Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network are never able to pose a terrorist threat again. Thirdly, we want to ensure that Afghanistan no longer harbours and sustains international terrorism or terrorists. Assuming that the Taliban regime fails to comply with those perfectly proper and legitimate requests, we require a sufficient change in the leadership
1134
in Afghanistan to ensure that that country's links with international terrorism are broken and that its support for international terrorism is ended.
Those aims are set out in the paper that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has placed in the Library. In response to a question asked by the hon. Member for North Essex, I assure the House that those aims are entirely consistent with those set out by the United States. I recognise that the objectives are ambitious, but they are necessary, and with our allies and partners, we will achieve them. That will not be easy; it will certainly take time, but we will succeed.
The continuous military action by the coalition will play an important part—but only a part—in achieving those objectives. We have three clear military goals: to destroy the terrorist camps; to pressure the Taliban regime into ending its support for Osama bin Laden: and to create the right conditions for future operations in Afghanistan so that that pressure is sustained for as long as it is required.
Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development stated in public on the radio that every target was approved by a Law Officer. I do not know the answer to this question, but is every target approved by a Law Officer?
Mr. Hoon: I believe that my right hon. Friend actually said that every target was approved on advice from the Law Officers. My hon. Friend understands the fast-moving nature of military actions—he has considerably more experience of them than I am ever likely to have—so I am sure that he will appreciate that legal advice cannot always be given precisely before any particular attack takes place. Therefore, the general practice has always been to ensure that all targets conform to international law and, indeed, national law. That is our practice in relation to the current operations, and that will continue to be the case.
I have set out our military goals, and our justification for pursuing them is very well known. The atrocities of the 11 September may have taken place overseas, but they still represent the largest ever single loss of British lives through terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out for the House the conclusions that we have reached about who was responsible. Those conclusions have convinced Governments around the world of the guilt of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. We are now taking proportionate action in self-defence, in accordance with international law, as I have said, to protect our citizens and, indeed, those of other countries.
This is a very different kind of conflict from those that we have fought in the past. It is not a classical military campaign. Our enemy is a not a standing army, such as the one that we faced in the Gulf conflict or, more recently, in Kosovo.
In Kosovo, it was necessary to render the significant Serbian military machine incapable of continuing to massacre innocent civilians. NATO took military action to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Despite what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said about the situation in Kosovo, I have been there several times in different ministerial roles and hundreds of thousands of refugees

1135
are back in their homes and jobs. Indeed, in my most recent visit to Pristina I saw signs of growing prosperity, which after my first visit I would have found remarkable. That is a tribute to the military campaign that was undertaken on behalf of the refugees to enable them to return to their homes.
However, this time we need to operate in different ways. The phasing, tempo and scale of our operations will differ markedly from how we would act against a conventional opponent. Already we can see that this campaign is very different. The coalition has attacked many targets in the past nine days. They are much smaller than they were in Kosovo and there are not so many of them. We struck more than twice as many targets in the first 10 days of the Kosovo carripaign than we have attacked in Afghanistan despite the appalling weather that we faced in Kosovo. The targets now are not as obvious. In contrast to the Taliban. the Serbian military machine was a formidable opponent and considerable effort was needed to degrade its military capability so that we could operate safely. This time it is different. The Taliban are not a significant military power, but rather one that has persistently supported international terrorism.
We have committed ourselves for the long haul so that we achieve our objectives, however long it takes. The military element of our strategy against international terrorism may take some time. Of course, the precise length and shape of the military campaign will depend on how we can best achieve our objectives.
Military operations will not necessarily continue at their current level. Their tempo will fluctuate: they may slow or intensify; they may even appear to stop. Everything will depend on our analysis of how we can best meet the military objectives and how those contribute to the broad front of pressure that is being applied to the Taliban regime.
Military operations do not need to be confined to air strikes. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 11 October, we have always been aware that we may have to back up air strikes with other forms of proportionate and targeted action. That could include the use of ground forces. A number of options are being considered and we have not taken any final decisions. When we do, we will, of course, keep the House fully informed, not least because we will have to face up to the risk of casualties of our own. We have to recognise that that is a real possibility. We will obviously work to minimise those risks, but we cannot eliminate them entirely. The decision to deploy our armed forces on ground operations is never taken lightly, but such is the gravity of the threat posed by terrorism that we may ultimately have no choice.
On the details of the campaign, I shall set out the extent to which we have achieved the military aims to which I referred earlier. So far, the coalition has attacked more than 60 different military targets. I emphasise that we have addressed exclusively military targets. Our targets have been terrorist training camps, the Taliban's military infrastructure and, in particular, their early warning and air defence capabilities. Those include military command and control sites, early warning radars, airfields, surface-to-air missile sites, military aircraft, military garrisons and military and maintenance sites, all of which are military targets. Not a single civilian infrastructure target—if that
1136
was the phrase used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway—has been attacked deliberately by the coalition.
Mr. Blizzard: In light of that detail, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the media sometimes reduce such facts to a shorthand version of "Kabul was pounded tonight", which is different from what he has outlined?
Mr. Hoon: That is right. We all understand why those accounts appear in our newspapers. They are graphic details of what are often complex military operations involving a range of different aircraft and weapons.
I shall try to set out the operations that are being conducted and their consequences.
We have not yet achieved all our objectives. We certainly believe that al-Qaeda's capacity to train terrorists has been hit, and hit very hard. We have attacked nine of its camps. Many of them have been put beyond use; others have been very badly damaged.
Real damage has been done to elements of the Taliban regime's military capability. That is essential if we are to end their support for Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. The Taliban's military command and control facilities have been hit, their early warning and air defence systems lie in ruins, radars have been destroyed, surface-to-air missile sites have been smashed. Their ability to sustain their forces effectively has, we believe, been very severely degraded.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and I raised: the campaign is very much less intensive than that undertaken in Kosovo? To echo the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), very large areas of Afghanistan will remain unaware of any military action—unlike what happened in Kosovo. We can therefore emphasise how surgically directed the campaign is.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I said, in the first 10 days of the Kosovo campaign, notwithstanding some pretty poor weather conditions, more than twice as many targets were attacked as in the campaign in Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman is right that, what evidence there is about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan suggests that life is going on comparatively normally. I very recently saw some footage on public television of the day after the pounding that our newspapers allege Kabul has been given, in which market stalls in the centre of the city were selling food, clothing and other items which they presumably sell routinely, day in and day out. That would tend to suggest that the targets that have been attacked have been attacked very precisely and strategically, and have not caused the kind of damage to the civilian population that some, even in these debates, have suggested.
Mr. Galloway: How surgical a weapon is the B52? Which weapons hit the Red Cross building today, killed the four United Nations workers on the first day and hit the village of Khorum, which the British and western media filmed the other day?
Mr. Hoon: B52s drop weapons; they are not weapons in their own right—unlike civilian aircraft that are flown

1137
into buildings and used as weapons. We are relying on the precision of the weapons that are dropped from the B52 to hit the targets accurately. In due course, I shall deal with each of my hon. Friend's points and hope to satisfy him as best I can of the details of the allegations that he is repeating.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend address the concerns that one or two of my constituents have expressed to me about the dropping of food to people in Afghanistan? Will he confirm that the areas where food is being dropped are not also the places that are being bombed?
Mr. Hoon: That is so, although we all recognise that more work must be done to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches the areas where it is most needed. The United States has deployed a number of transport aircraft to drop food packages mainly where we know that there are significant numbers of refugees who had intended to cross what is now a closed border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. As I said at the start of my comments, the more information we are able to glean from photo-reconnaissance, the more we shall be able to target humanitarian aid accurately where it is most needed.
We have gone a long way towards creating the right conditions for future operations in Afghanistan, to maintain the pressure on the Taliban regime. We have attacked nine airfields. The vast majority have had their operational capability degraded or destroyed. The bulk of the Taliban's limited air force—its fighters, helicopters, and transport aircraft—have been reduced to wreckage. The threat posed by the Taliban air force is now negligible. Certainly, we have achieved air supremacy at medium and high levels over Afghanistan.
Yet we know that camps can be rebuilt, radars replaced and runways repaired. We must ensure that terrorists cannot use them again and that coalition forces can operate with the greatest possible freedom and safety. Repeated strikes on the same targets are therefore sometimes necessary. That does not indicate failure, but shows how thorough and determined we are in achieving our objectives.
I realise that there are concerns about the targets of the air strikes. I emphasise again that our targets are terrorist and military installations. The targeting processes are rigorous, involving the Law Officers—which answers the point raised again by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. A great deal of effort is spent on both sides of the Atlantic examining the targets carefully to ensure that we minimise as far as possible any risk of civilian casualties.
Syd Rapson: Is there hard evidence that the Taliban are collecting civilians to pack around potential target sites and so give rise to bad press coverage, or that they are using Red Cross areas to hide fuel dumps and so on?
Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with the Red Cross point shortly. I have no specific evidence of efforts by the Taliban to use human shields, but I do not entirely trust the efforts that they have so far made to explain to the
1138
world the nature of the civilian casualties that they claim to have suffered. I shall deal with that point in more detail later.
I emphasise once again that we have no quarrel whatever with the people of Afghanistan. Enormous efforts are made to minimise civilian casualties and avoid exposing civilians to unnecessary risk. However, as speakers in the debate have rightly observed, the possibility of accidents and errors can never be entirely eliminated. Fortunately such incidents are rare, but there is always the chance that something will go wrong, however much care is taken. I greatly regret the deaths of any civilians who may have been killed in the air strikes, including those of four United Nations workers who died last week.
I am aware of the reports that civilians have been killed in coalition strikes on the village of Khorum. My United States counterpart, Secretary of State for Defence Donald Rumsfeld, explained yesterday that there were good indications that it was a confirmed military target. The chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff, General Richard Myers, indicated that the actual targets were caves containing military hardware that made them entirely legitimate military targets.
The caves were hit very precisely. We are aware that following the strikes on the caves, serious explosions occurred—far more serious than could have been caused by the weapon that initially struck the caves. That clearly indicated that the caves were being used to store high explosives, weapons and munitions. The consequential series of explosions clearly demonstrated that the caves were a perfectly legitimate and appropriate military target.
Vernon Coaker: It is important that my right hon. Friend gives the true facts about events in Afghanistan. Will he confirm that we are dropping leaflets and that we are continuing to do all we can to use the BBC World Service to broadcast into Afghanistan, so that we can tell the people of Afghanistan about the situation from our perspective and explain our aims and objectives?
Mr. Hoon: I confirm that there have been leaflet drops. I also confirm that excellent work is being done by the World Service. What is most important about the World Service's work is that it operates entirely independently of the Government and explains events in a completely objective way. Those in government who from time to time are criticised by the World Service recognise its independence and objectivity.
Reports and allegations have come in today, including one that five civilians have been killed in a Kabul hospital. All I can say in response to such allegations is that there were no known hospitals close to the sites in Kabul that were targeted by air strikes last night. Immediately on hearing of the allegations, we began investigations, as is standard practice following any suggestion that civilian casualties have occurred.
I shall deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) about a warehouse used by the International Committee of the Red Cross and suggestions that it had been damaged. Fortunately, it appears that no one has been killed. The Red Cross has confirmed that no food stocks were damaged. The details of the incident are still sketchy and no specific battle damage assessment is yet available, but

1139
we believe that the warehouse was part of a larger complex near Kabul airport that was being used by the Taliban. That may deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge); there seems to be a more than significant degree of control by the Taliban regime over supplies of humanitarian assistance going into Afghanistan. Indeed, that has certainly been used by the regime in the past to continue its control over the people of Afghanistan, which is obviously a matter of great regret.
I repeat that we will continue to investigate any claims of civilian casualties very carefully. In fact, it is almost impossible to obtain any independent evidence against which we can judge such allegations. So far, only once have the Taliban regime allowed independent journalists into Afghanistan to investigate such claims. From what I have read of their accounts, those journalists were extremely doubtful about the veracity of what they saw; some certainly felt that incidents had been manufactured for their benefit.
On the subject of the media, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised yesterday's meeting between a number of broadcasters and the director of communications and strategy at No. 10 Downing street. I think that I should deal with that, as the hon. Lady specifically raised it. The events of 11 September make these exceptional times. A number of issues have arisen in the last two weeks, including media reporting of the Prime Minister's travel plans, videos of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda members being shown on television, and the Taliban's invitation to selected journalists to visit a village in Afghanistan. It was felt, and the broadcasters agreed, that it would be sensible to sit down and talk those things through. The Government were able to flag up some of their concerns, particularly relating to security issues, which was welcomed by both sides. Let me repeat the Government's appreciation for the way in which the broadcasters have gone about an extraordinarily difficult job in recent weeks.
Miss McIntosh: May I make a separate point about coded messages, as perhaps I did not express myself as clearly as I might have done earlier? Is the Defence Secretary at liberty to tell the House what action can be taken to prevent such inadvertent activity?
Mr. Hoon: I recognise the extreme difficulty of identifying coded messages. We have no idea of the form that they might take. That concern was raised initially in the United States and obviously we must take account of any continuing anxiety. I do not have specific evidence of any such messages; I simply repeat the points that I made about the meeting that has taken place.
Mr. Salmond: Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that coded messages could be given in edited highlights of an interview broadcast on the BBC or ITN, as opposed to the internet, cable or satellite television or, for that matter, the personal columns of The Times? Is he seriously maintaining that that was the reason for calling in the broadcasters?
Mr. Hoon: I am suggesting that that is a possibility. I am not setting any great store by it, for the precise reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Clearly we do not know if there is any code in such tapes and where any
1140
such code might occur, so I recognise that that is not the strongest possibility. Nevertheless, it remains a possibility, and I put it no stronger than that.
Mr. Dismore: If those coded messages are going out, to whom does my right hon. Friend think they are addressed? Earlier tonight, I expressed concerns about certain fundamentalist organisations. Will my right hon. Friend comment on whether or not action can be taken, for example in relation to al-Muhajiroun and the Supporters of Sharia?
Mr. Hoon: Certainly, there is no doubt that the actions of those who spent a considerable time in the United States waiting to commit the atrocities of 11 September were triggered by some event or other. We do not know whether the signal was a coded message contained in a video, or the death of Masood, or whether—I am thinking in terms of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) wryly suggested—an advertisement was placed in the personal column of The New York Times. We may never find out about the trigger for the terrorists' actions. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that we must obviously be concerned about whether people are waiting to take similarly appalling action anywhere in the world. That proper concern was expressed in the course of the meeting to which I referred.
The coalition's actions have widespread international support. The world was shocked and disgusted by what happened on 11 September. Countries around the world have gone far beyond simple expressions of sympathy about what happened. The United Kingdom may have been the first country to deploy its forces alongside those of the United States, but it will not be the only one.
Ms Gisela Stuart: Some hon. Members have just returned from a two-day visit to Brussels by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We met ambassadors from NATO and other EU member states. First, a huge amount of gratitude was expressed, especially by the Americans, for the fact that article 5 of the treaty was implemented within 24 hours. Secondly, there was concern about the long-term consideration of what will happen if we create large numbers of refugees. I would be especially interested to know whether any action will be taken in the immediate future to support Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt in his speech with the question of refugees and humanitarian assistance. We have emphasised that that is every bit as important as the military action that we are now undertaking. It is vital for the future of the coalition and its operations, as well as for the future of Afghanistan, that we take action to protect the millions of people who were in very great difficulty even before 11 September. It is obviously important that we deal with that task.
NATO has now deployed the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean, a multinational force that is currently under British command, to the eastern Mediterranean, where it stands ready to engage in force protection of high-value assets. Five NATO airborne early warning aircraft, crewed by air force personnel drawn from across NATO's allies, have been deployed to the eastern United States, thereby permitting that country to deploy its own early warning aircraft abroad for operations over

1141
Afghanistan. They are piloted not only by British or American personnel, but people from a wide range of nationalities and from different NATO countries. A real and practical contribution is therefore being made both at sea and in the air by NATO and its personnel and equipment.
The countries in the coalition have friends throughout the international community. We are talking frequently to our French and German counterparts. They have offered important capabilities as their contribution to the coalition that was formed in response to the events of 11 September, and so have other allies, including Italy, Spain, Portugal, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Still more nations have contributed intelligence on the terrorists, arrested suspects or permitted basing or overflight rights to coalition forces.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) recognises that that action is part of the collective European effort that he seeks. A very determined effort is being made by European allies and partners to ensure that they play their part in confronting international terrorism. Indeed, I saw much of that support at first hand during my visits last week to Moscow and to an informal meeting of EU Defence Ministers in Brussels on Friday. All these expressions of support are important and valuable. I suspect that the frustration of my ministerial colleagues from other European nations—if I may speak for a moment on their behalf—is that their desire to become involved in military operations has not always so far been fulfilled simply because of the pace of the operations and the nature of the equipment that is currently being used. As I said, however, there are options that may subsequently involve them.
Mr. Ian Davidson: If British forces are in action, they are likely to be threatened by weapons that were provided by the United States. In view of that fact, and if we are intent upon building a wide coalition, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we involve only those people with whom we want to have relationships in future?
Mr. Hoon: Of course that is the case. The range and breadth of the international community's response is further proof of the sort of commitment that we need. We need to concentrate on building and rebuilding that coalition and on making sure that we can take appropriate action across the range of Government activities to achieve our ends.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Pensions Clawback
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
10 pm
Linda Perham: I am very pleased to have secured the debate this evening. Although it takes place when the country is rightly focusing on other matters, the subject is most important. The little known issue of clawback reflects on our treatment of our pensioners. Many of them, like my parents, are of the generation that fought in or lived through the second world war.
I was first elected to Parliament a few weeks before my 50th birthday and was promptly approached by Age Concern, which assisted me in drafting my private Member's Bill on age discrimination. Since then, I have been closely involved with issues that affect people in their later years, and I am the secretary of the all-party group on ageing and older people. My constituency has about 18,000 pensioners, who are ably championed by the Redbridge Pensioners Action Association. I therefore have an obvious interest in challenging the inequitable practice of pension clawback.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), who supports me in the Chamber tonight and has campaigned on the issue for several years. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister, who will reply to the debate. I know that he is aware of the issue, and he has helpfully agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans and a small delegation in the near future.
Pension clawback operates to the detriment of millions of pensioners, yet, as far as I know, it has not been debated in the Chamber before tonight. I want to raise the anxieties that, I believe, the 137 colleagues who signed my early-day motion, tabled on 8 February 2001, wish the Government to consider seriously.
Clawback is officially known as pension integration or abatement. It means a reduction in retired people's company pension simply because they receive a state pension. Employers can—and all too often do—deduct a sum every week up to the amount of a single person's basic state pension from the occupational pension that the former employee receives. Even those who are not entitled to a full state pension can find their company pension reduced by anything up to £72.50 per week.
That means that hundreds of thousands of pensioners lose significant sums every year. How can that be justified? An obscure legal loophole under the National Insurance Act 1946 allows companies to take account of state retirement benefits when paying retired employees a company pension. In most cases, an amount equivalent to the current value of the basic state pension or the lower earnings limit is deducted; in other words £3,770 a year for a single person from April 2001.
I understand that Inland Revenue rules allow retired workers to claim both a state pension and a full occupational pension without any clawback. It is therefore by no means obligatory for companies to operate clawback. Indeed, its existence works against the interests of the Inland Revenue. Pensions, whether provided by the state or occupational schemes, are treated as taxable income. If those pensioners received their full and rightful

1143
amount, not only they but the Exchequer would be better off. Pensioners would have more income and would therefore pay more tax.
Why should the taxpayer subsidise the pension funds of cash-rich companies that operate pension clawback? Why should the Government be deprived of millions of pounds which could be better spent on health, education and other public services?
Mr. Kerry Pollard: As well as paying tax, some people on low occupational pensions would be able to claim benefits. If clawback were abolished, would not the Exchequer benefit substantially from the reduction in the number of housing benefit and other claimants?
Linda Perham: That is an important contribution to my argument.
There is also the argument that those whose pensions are clawed back make lower contributions throughout their working lives. In the case of non-contributory pension schemes, however, that benefits only the employer. Regardless of any benefits to the employer, is the welfare of future pensioners so secure that employers may discourage people from making maximum provision for their retirement years?
Employees are free to make additional voluntary contributions, but evidence suggests that employers do not specifically make it clear that the deduction will be made. Even so, when the Government's pension forecast statement is rolled out across the country, which I shall welcome, we may see some improvement, as we hope employees will, for the first time. We hope that employees will be able to see clearly what they will receive on their retirement.
The operation of pension clawback is widespread. According to figures produced by the National Association of Pension Funds, it is estimated that up to 2.5 million pensioners across the United Kingdom are affected by pension clawback. Four out of 10 schemes in the private sector operate the practice, compared with only 6 per cent, of public sector schemes.
Of course, those hardest hit by clawback are not people with large occupational pensions, but people who were low paid and part time when in employment. Unfortunately, it is not just grasping Gradgrinds who are exploiting the legal loophole; penalised pensioners come from a wide range of sectors of the economy. In the financial services industry, they include tens of thousands of staff at banks and other financial institutions. It is only right to note that some employers have never operated pension clawback, while others, to their credit—for example Shell, BP Amoco and the Bank of England—have ended the practice within the last few years.
The Daily Mail—which, in 1998, took up the campaign spearheaded by UNIFI, the trade union representing employees in the financial services industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans—reported in June 2000 that BP Amoco had abolished clawback for its 35,000 pensioners at a cost of £6 million, that Shell was cutting the amount of pension clawback for eight out of 10 of its 21,000 pensioners, and that Nestle had halved the amount that it deducted.
UNIFI has argued tirelessly that this practice is unfair, discriminatory and unnecessary, and that it costs the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue millions of pounds a
1144
year in lost revenue. I am grateful to UNIFI for its assistance in furnishing me with information about the issue. I first became aware of it when my constituent Mrs. Engleback visited me at my surgery last December, and I have since been contacted by a number of affected pensioners from other parts of the country.
UNIFI's campaign has also attracted the support of the TUC. John Monks spoke at a packed rally of pensioners last February. But this is not merely a matter for collective bargaining between employers and trade unions; it is, I believe, a moral and legal issue. The Government should consider what can be done to close the legal loophole to ensure that the practice does not continue.
Clawback is morally offensive because it is unfair. Why should staff who have been paying into their pensions for years not receive their full entitlement? It affects the poorest pensioners the most. A clawback of, say, £1,300 a year may not make an appreciable dent in an annual pension of £50,000, but it can cause real difficulty for someone receiving £5,000 a year. It is also discriminatory, and contributes to the pay gap between men and women. Clawback applies only to final salary schemes. Money purchase schemes are not affected. Women, generally leaving on lower salaries and therefore entitled to lower pensions, suffer the most. My constituent Mrs. Engleback has also asked whether this discriminatory practice is illegal under European Union law.
This Government have consistently attacked discrimination against women and put in place measures to improve women's lives. In particular, the pensioners' minimum income guarantee can rightly be praised for redressing an injustice against women. Last year, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), said of the minimum income guarantee:
"The changes that we are making will be of particular advantage to women, because on average, women have smaller occupational pensions than men, and of course they are likely to live longer." —[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 453.]
Many clawback companies, and banks in particular, have announced record profits over the years—some as much as £32 billion a year. Do they really need to hoard former employees' pension money as well?
Trade unions can and do achieve notable successes through negotiations with individual employers, but they need and deserve assistance from legislators. Pressure from hon. Members who join individual campaigns can have a decisive impact, but I believe that we can do more.
A Bill was recently introduced in Ireland, with the full support of the Irish Government, freezing the amount deducted by clawback at the 1998 rate, ensuring that it cannot rise in line with state pension increases. Over time, that will lead to the phasing out of this unfair practice. I would like the Government to review the whole issue of clawback and consider what they can do, drawing on the Irish experience as appropriate.
Mr. Pollard: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently met the Irish pensions Minister, who told me that the Irish Government wanted to signal to employers that they should scrap clawback, and that the Bill in question is just two pages in length?
Linda Perham: I was indeed aware of that. It is important to consider what has been done in other

1145
countries, and especially Ireland, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for pursuing this matter. He started campaigning more than three years ago, and I am grateful that I am able to carry the debate forward.
It would be helpful if the Government could indicate that they agree in principle with the hon. Members who signed my early-day motion, as well as the 200 who signed the one that my hon. Friend tabled in a previous Session, which states that clawback is unfair and discriminatory, as well as a burden on taxpayers.
After a lifetime of paying into their company pension scheme, former employees should be looking forward to a peaceful, well-earned retirement. Because of clawback, pension payments are reduced, leading to real resentment and hardship. It is time that the injustice of clawback was more widely recognised. It is time that the Government took a serious look at how they can help those who have provided for their retirement yet find their pensions raided and their incomes slashed.
10.13 pm
The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): Good evening, Mr. Speaker. In the many years in which I have addressed the House from the Government or Opposition Front Bench, I have never known a Speaker do us the honour of coming to listen to an Adjournment debate. I hope that I live up to your expectations.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) for highlighting this issue. It is true that she has been campaigning on it for some time. I will indeed meet my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) on 6 November, and I invite my hon. Friend to attend, too, if she wants.
I will try to answer in general terms as well as responding to some specific questions, but if I am unable to give full answers tonight, I assure my hon. Friends that I will place letters in the Library, so that the other 137 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion can have a full picture of our debate.
Many people are members of integrated pension schemes, and I know that feelings run high when pensions are offset by basic state retirement pension. The Government feel strongly that it is important for all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement. Occupational pensions are an excellent way of providing for this. The Government are keen to encourage both the provision and membership of private pension schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North asked about potential discrimination against part-time workers, who are mainly women. The directive on part-time workers was implemented in April 2001, when I was Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. To comply with it, schemes operating integration will need to ensure that the way in which they do so does not discriminate between part-time and full-time employees. I hope that that answers her point.
We must bear it in mind that employers do not have to provide occupational pension schemes for their employees. The costs of running a pension scheme are part of the overall remuneration package that a company offers. All pension schemes vary in the structure of the
1146
benefits that they provide. The level of benefits of course affects the cost of providing them. Because of this, the employer must make the decision of how and when integration should be abolished. If employers were forced to change their schemes overnight and remove clawback rules, many of them might decide that they could no longer afford to provide a scheme at all. An integrated scheme is surely better than no occupational pension at all.
It is true that the practice of taking account of basic state pension goes back a long way. It started when national insurance contributions and state retirement pensions were introduced in 1948. At the time, a number of employers who offered occupational pension schemes felt that there was some duplication between the two types of provision.
With the aim of reducing contribution costs for employers and employees alike, some defined benefit schemes were adjusted to take account of some or all of the state retirement pension when calculating the occupational pension payable. That aimed at providing, overall, the same level of benefits. Although the aims of integration are clear, the result is that the occupational pension can be reduced to a level lower than that expected by the scheme member. It is important that employees fully understand the pension benefits that they can expect from their scheme at retirement.
The Government place great importance on the provision of good, clear information, enabling individuals to make adequate provision for their retirement. All schemes are required by law to provide every member with basic information about the scheme, either before they join or shortly after. That information must include an explanation of contribution and benefit rates that includes how benefits are calculated. Members must be informed of changes in scheme rules that affect benefit rates. In addition, scheme members can ask for a benefit statement every year that gives a projection of their entitlement. Most schemes provide these statements automatically.
The Government have built on that scheme. A pilot scheme has been running for almost two years for new-style combined pension forecasts. The forecasts are clear and understandable and give details of both state and occupational pension entitlement. The pilot scheme for these new-style statements is now in its second year and has been a resounding success. We will make a statement tomorrow, announcing the second phase, in which we start recruiting companies to participate with the Government in the hope that, between 2005 and 2006, as many as 15 million people will get a combined statement about what they should expect in terms of their occupational pension and their basic state pension entitlement. The new statement will allow individuals to make informed decisions about their financial needs in retirement and encourage them to take advantage of membership of their employer's scheme.
My hon. Friend asked about Ireland and about clawback that cannot take account of increases in state pension. A majority of members of Irish pension schemes are covered by integrated schemes. The amendments made by the Irish Government do not phase out integration. The change was made simply to ensure that pensioners got the full value of the state pension increase in Ireland. We have no evidence that occupational pension schemes in the UK take increases in the state pension into

1147
account once a member's pension has gone into payment. There would be no additional benefit to scheme members by following the Irish legislation in this matter. However, I am happy to discuss this subject with my hon. Friends on 6 November. If they have evidence, I ask them to provide it at our meeting. Many, although not the majority of, private sector defined benefit schemes are designed to take account of state retirement benefits. The factors used by schemes operating integration vary and it can be achieved in a number of ways. It remains a fact however that whatever method is used by a scheme to achieve integration in a contributory scheme, the employee will pay less than in a corresponding non-integrated scheme.
As to whether the clawback system is unfair to women, all pension schemes must have an equal treatment rule. Since May 1990, the date of a European Court ruling, occupational pensions have had to be equal for men and women who are doing the same work of equal value. If a member believes that the rules of her scheme discriminate against women, she can lodge a claim with an employment tribunal. The same applies to a part-time worker.
The Government recognise the need to boost rates of pension for low earners and those who take breaks in employment to look after children. That is why, starting next year, we are reforming the state earnings-related pension scheme through the state second pension, which will give more help to those on low earnings—some 14 million people. Some 2 million carers and 2 million long-term disabled people with broken work records will be among those helped to build up second-tier pensions for the first time. Those who are looking after a sick or disabled person, or caring for a child under six, will also benefit for the first time. Women will particularly benefit from those changes.
As I said earlier, occupational pension provision in the UK is voluntary. It is up to employers to decide the nature of the scheme and the benefits that they will provide. A scheme will, however, have to meet any Inland Revenue and legislative requirements in force. Also, if the scheme is contracted-out there are certain other conditions that must be met.
Pension schemes vary greatly in the type of benefits that they provide, as do the rules on how those benefits are calculated. Integrated schemes have been in place since the introduction of the state retirement pension. Now to compel schemes to withdraw integration would be in effect a retrospective measure and likely to place significant unexpected costs upon employers. It has to be a matter for employers to decide whether their schemes should continue to operate on an integrated basis.
The contribution levels of schemes are based on benefits that accrue under them. Removing clawback may also result in scheme members having to make higher levels of contributions than they do now. In recent years, trade unions and members in general have pressed employers to review integrated arrangements. My hon. Friend mentioned some of the successes achieved in that area. I do not argue against those continued debates and negotiations, because changing a scheme must be a decision for employers and those who negotiate on behalf of employees. I am not arguing against her, but trying to put the debate in context. The picture as a whole is a little more complex than some of our colleagues appear to wish it to be.
1148
We welcome any action taken to improve the level of occupational pension available to lower paid employees. Some employers have indeed made changes to how they operate integration and some have ended the practice in respect of their scheme altogether. Perhaps some more will do so, following the campaign run by my hon. Friends and UNIFI with some success. The Government hope that all employers will see the advantages of ensuring that pension scheme benefits are fair to all employees.
The provision of an occupational pension by an employer for his employees has always been voluntary. It remains for the employer to decide what type of scheme and level of benefits he wishes to provide. It is therefore very important that employees fully understand the type of scheme that is run by their employer and the benefits that they can expect at retirement.
The Government recognise the importance of good information, which enables individuals to plan their income in retirement. That is why we will introduce, in April, the new pension service, which will help provide integrated roll-out of information about the state and second-tier pensions, whether provided by the state or the private sector. Occupational pensions play an important part in providing income in retirement. They have been one of the great pension success stories and we will continue to support and encourage them.
The Government came to power four years ago, but we did not inherit a blank sheet of paper. The state system was badly in need of modernisation. It excluded more than a million women, thereby causing them to be in poverty. From a standing start, the Government have worked to identify the poorest pensioners, and to put in place the minimum income guarantee.
We have been criticised for the complexities of the MIG, but it was right not to wait the three or four years that it would have taken to create an all-singing, all-dancing system. We therefore rolled our sleeves up and tackled pensioner poverty. We got the job done, with the result that more than 1.6 million pensioners—many of them women—who lost out when the welfare state was created have received an increase in their basic pension income of an average of £15 per week. In addition, the latest figures show that the last 100,000 or so who have gained access to the minimum income guarantee have received an increase of some £20 per week. We are therefore reaching the very poorest pensioners, and that is important.
The modernisation strategy has to be successful, however. We are not dealing only with pensioner poverty today; we must ensure that the pension system is modernised in a way that will prevent pensioner poverty in the future. It is a big task. I have said to colleagues that it is a bit like painting the Forth road bridge—no sooner has one finished than one has to start all over. However, with a mixture of public and private provision, every change and modernisation in the state or private sectors will help to establish the principle, for the first time, that every citizen has equal access to the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee. Citizens will also have access, in the work place, to a range of pension benefits.
That is why the second state pension and stakeholder pensions are so important. From a standing start, we have already ensured that hundreds of thousands of workers who

1149
previously had no pension now have access to a second-tier pension. Also, more than 150,000 small companies that had never considered having a pension scheme have now established such a scheme. That is essential progress.
People can also top up their pensions by investing in additional voluntary contributions. From this April, anyone who belongs to an occupational scheme with earnings up to £30,000 a year can top up their pension by investing in a stakeholder pension. A major modernisation strategy is in place, and great progress is being made.
I should like to continue this dialogue with my colleagues and employers. One thing is certain, regardless of whether the scheme provided is in the public or private sector: when an employer makes a contribution, the take-up by employees is significantly larger. We will do whatever is necessary to get the message across to employers that investing in pensions for their employees is the same as investing in the work force.
1150
Increasingly, employers recognise the importance of a trained and committed work force in the global economy. Such employees are effective and committed, but the cost of training them is huge. Employers want to retain trained employees, and so I believe that employment packages will soon begin to outline employee pension entitlements, as well as weekly or monthly pay.
I am optimistic about the future, and I look forward to further debates and discussions. I do not think that we will resolve the issue on 6 November, but the Government's strategy is clear. We want to ensure that everyone in Britain gets the opportunity to have a second-tier pension on top of the basic state pension. That will ensure that we will never again have a large number of retired people in Britain living in poverty.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the subject of this debate, and I look forward to our meeting on 6 November.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Carers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr.Pearson.]
9.30 am
John Robertson: I am delighted to have secured this debate to discuss an issue that affects not only many of my constituents but people across the country. I am confident that few Members will not have been approached by carers or carers' organisations in their constituencies highlighting the problems that they face.
I should like to acknowledge the care workers and care staff working in the UK, and the voluntary organisations that provide a valuable service to the national health service. This morning, however, I should like to focus on carers who look after a relative, friend or partner who, because of age, illness or a physical or learning disability, needs support and cannot manage without help—in other words, people who provide care through sheer necessity and not through a contract of employment.
The latest figures show that there are nearly 5.7 million carers in the UK, which is approximately one in seven of the adult population. The 1999 general household survey revealed that that number is increasing. For example, in 1999 there were 620,000 adult carers in Scotland compared with 500,000 only four years previously. The survey also showed that the number of carers providing support for more than 20 hours a week has increased by 13 per cent. since 1990. There are approximately 185,000 adults in Scotland at the heavy end of caring.
It must be recognised that providing care ranges from occasional help such as helping with shopping to providing continuous care. It is estimated that approximately 60 per cent. of carers who look after someone in their home provide personal care such as bathing, washing, dressing and toileting. A similar percentage of carers provide physical help such as getting in and out of bed, walking and getting up and down stairs. Approximately 27 per cent. of carers take responsibility for administering medicines, 60 per cent. look after someone with a physical disability, 7 per cent. look after someone with a mental disability and 15 per cent. provide care for someone who is both mentally and physically disabled.
The invaluable contribution made by carers should be properly recognised and supported. They contribute a great deal to society and save the NHS billions of pounds each year, yet they make untold sacrifices and often feel unsupported and isolated. The tasks involved can lead to physical and mental exhaustion and stress, which can affect the health of the carer and have a knock-on effect on the person being cared for.
172WH
Figures show that the peak age for becoming a carer is between 45 and 64. Carers in that age group can feel socially excluded as many give up paid employment and a career to care for someone, and that can lead to financial hardship. As one 56-year-old carer said:
"I sacrificed my career to care for my parents. I deserve some recognition for what is now my employment."
Another carer said:
"I love my daughter dearly, but I have paid the price of caring. Now I would like to have a life too and follow some of my own dreams."
Young carers also experience stress and isolation as their schooling is often affected. Many of them are unable to enjoy the social activities that their peers take for granted. Worst of all, many carers feel demoralised by the lack of status that their role brings.
The general household survey also uncovered some disturbing facts about the additional help provided, or at least available, for carers. Some 53 per cent. of carers who live in the same household as those they care for said that they were the sole carer. Some 75 per cent. of those receiving care from someone who lives in the same household had no regular visits from professionals such as doctors, district nurses or social workers. The proportion of households that receive visits from health professionals is declining and that increases pressure on the carer.
The Government have already made bold moves to address those difficulties. They are increasing the recognition that carers receive, and easing the burden on their lives. The Employment Relations Act 1999 ensured that, for the first time, those who combined caring with employment would have the right to unpaid time off to deal with difficult caring situations, such as arranging residential care. The 1999 Act encompassed a range of domestic situations, including those involving unmarried partners, and carers who have responsibility for people living outside the family home.
In October 2000 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced an extra £191 million aid package for carers; 300,000 of them could benefit from that in the next three years. Those measures led to the Government's consultation on the invalid care allowance, which was widely welcomed. The consultation period ended yesterday, and I look forward to hearing the recommendations that follow it.
The Government's proposal to allow carers who are over 65 years old to claim invalid care allowance for the first time is particularly welcome. ICA not only provides financial help, but confers recognition on the role that carers play. Benefit provisions for carers aim to maintain the income of those who give up the opportunity of full-time work to provide someone with regular and substantial care. It follows that those who have reached pensionable age do not sacrifice the opportunity of full-time employment, but as Age Concern rightly pointed out:
"many older carers are angry that they receive no financial support in recognition of the important role they play."
Extending ICA would help to secure equal treatment for all carers, and ensure that conditions of entitlement were uniform. I hope that the widely welcomed proposals to extend ICA to those over 65 years old will be introduced as soon as possible. There are strong arguments to suggest that the ICA should not remain an

173WH
income replacement benefit, but should be extended to cover the additional costs that carers incur through their duties. There is a strong case for waiving the overlapping benefits rule.
Benefits for those who need care are often reduced or taken away altogether. A disabled person who lives alone but needs help from someone outside the caring profession is entitled to the severe disability premium, but once the carer is in receipt of ICA, the premium is scrapped. The person who is cared for is often unaware of that rule, and ultimately loses control of how his or her care is administered.
The premium allows the disabled person a degree of flexibility, but that independence is eroded once the premium is withdrawn. Carer UK and many carers have told me that that is a continuing problem. The severely disabled often face the dilemma of deciding which benefit they should claim. I hope that the Government will look into the matter.
The consultation proposes to allow the carer to receive ICA for eight weeks after the death of the person receiving care. That will make a huge difference to the carer, and will help them not only to cope with the loss of a friend or relative, but to adapt to a new domestic and financial situation. I commend the Government's recommendation and hope that it is implemented soon.
I welcome the proposal to change the name of the invalid care allowance to carers allowance. That will direct the focus away from those cared for and toward the carer, thus increasing awareness, recognition and the status of the role.
Some organisations have called for an increase in ICA. The Scottish Carers Alliance, among others, has called for ICA to be set at the level of the basic state pension. The Government recently indicated that the estimated cost of increasing ICA to that level would be £650 million in 2001–02. However, to be entitled to ICA, someone would have to be caring for more than 35 hours a week. Some carers work less than that, but others considerably more. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the 5.7 million carers in the United Kingdom average a 35-hour week. The minimum wage is now £4.10 an hour. If carers were paid an hourly rate for their work, it would cost the country a staggering £42.5 billion per year. The most recent official figure is £34 billion but that dates from 1993. The introduction of the minimum wage legislation alone does not account for the increase—we must keep in mind the increase in the number of carers during that time.
As things stand, most carers earn approximately £1 an hour. Considering that ICA is intended as replacement income for those who give up or are unable to take up full-time work, the current rate is far from adequate. Carers' organisations commended the Government for raising the earnings limit from £50 to £72, which will then rise in line with the lower earnings limit. That figure has not changed since April 1993, and the new level will make some difference to those who need to combine care with employment.
Some carers are hidden carers. They may not even know that they are carers and, because they are not known to relevant authorities, they may not be aware of the help to which they are entitled. In Anniesland, the
174WH
Princess Royal Trust has pioneered a number of methodologies in partnership with local GPs and pharmacists in order to identify hidden carers. For example, GPs have written to their patients asking them whether they care for someone; pharmacists have been placing surveys in all prescription bags and health centres have been conducting surveys. In order to publicise the benefits and the help available to carers, it is important that those hidden carers are identified. The holistic approach taken in Anniesland has been very successful, and I would welcome a move by the Department to pilot such schemes nationwide. Although the Scottish Parliament has responsibility for many matters relating to health provision, in this area in particular, examples of good practice can be monitored and adopted for the benefit of the whole country.
The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 gave carers the right to an assessment by their local authority to determine whether they were able to provide the required level of care. Those assessments can make an enormous difference to both carers and those in need of care. However, many carers complain that it is often extremely difficult to get that assessment, and carers' organisations have told me that the social services, health authorities and other relevant organisations are often unaware of their obligations. I urge the Government to ensure that those professionals are aware of the need for assessments and are equipped to carry them out.
Carers have brought to my attention the poor standard of information and support that is often all that is available when someone in need of care is discharged from hospital. In many cases, someone leaving hospital will require care for the first time and carers often find that they are left without instructions or information on where to turn for help. GPs also need to play their part in identifying and supporting carers, and that requires Government support. Surveys conducted among GPs found that many perceived that they would not be able to meet the carers' needs. However, carers often have relatively modest needs such as needing information or being directed towards sources of help.
Research also reveals that up to 50 per cent. of carers have suffered a physical injury while caring, such as a strained back. A similar percentage of carers said that they had been treated for stress-related problems since they began caring.
Many GPs recognise that they can prevent the health of carers from deteriorating by supporting them. That, in turn, reduces the strain on primary care resources. The NHS plan puts forward prevention as one of the five key challenges that face the NHS, and ensuring that carers receive support will be crucial if the NHS is to meet that challenge
At the weekend, my mother's kitchen caught fire. She is almost 81, and I suddenly became aware that I was now her carer. The house was gutted and my mother was taken to hospital. She was, I am glad to say, all right. I was not at home at the time, but my wife took the call and we took mother to my house. My mother has great difficulty in walking. The toilets in my house are upstairs, as are the bedrooms, and the kitchen and living area are downstairs. My mother could not climb the

175WH
stairs. She is an old lady who needs to go to the toilet regularly, and I had to carry her upstairs four times so that she could go to the toilet and then back downstairs to watch the television where she was comfortable.
Although I have a slight knowledge of what to do, it took me eight hours to get help from the local council's social work and housing departments. Can Members imagine what it would be like for someone who had no such knowledge? Clear and concise guidance is needed, including emergency and advice numbers. I hope that the Government will consider looking into ways in which carers' rights and the responsibility of local bodies can be publicised. Carers are often unaware that they can get additional assistance such as respite care, adaptations to the home, equipment for the disabled and meals on wheels. The 1999 general household survey found that only 22 per cent. of carers reported that the person for whom they cared received home help. Only 8 per cent. of those who are cared for received meals on wheels. Most shocking of all, perhaps, was the fact that almost 50 per cent. of carers reported that they had not taken a break of at least two days since they started caring.
I have raised a number of issues relating to the problems that carers face and I would like the Minister to answer some questions. What can be done about the unequal and confusing benefit system? What more can her Department do to ensure that carers are properly identified and supported? What additional help will be given to young carers? Will the Department look at ways of advertising the importance of caring, so that carers are more aware of the help to which they are entitled and so that key professionals are also aware of the problems that carers face?
9.48 am
Mr. Michael Weir: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) has raised an important issue that affects many people throughout the country. Obviously, my particular interest is Scotland where, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are a great many carers. The hon. Gentleman rightly concentrated on the difficulties of the benefit system. For many carers, however, much wider issues affect their daily lives.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned holistic systems in Anniesland, but many other areas require joined-up government to consider the impact on carers and the persons for whom they care. I have some personal experience of that, particularly in regard to the care of children. Many carers of disabled children have great difficulty not only with benefits—including the invalid care allowance—but with the disability living allowance through which money is claimed for children. Negotiating that system and claiming the two allowances can be a nightmare. Many people are rejected on their first attempt and are forced to appeal, and thus the systems drags on. If a person is already caring for a disabled child and dealing with the associated day-to-day difficulties, it can be frustrating and depressing going through the benefits system.
Another problem is education. Hon. Members will be aware of the difficulties that those caring for disabled children face when they try to get them a proper education. Under the education legislation, local authorities can be forced to maintain a record of needs
176WH
for such children. That provides the opportunity for someone to insist on provision for a child's needs, but that, too, can be difficult. Although some local authorities are good at operating the system, others are not, and achieving a record of needs can prove to be a real battle. One reason for that is that a record of needs can be a powerful tool for the parents of a disabled child in arguing that the particular educational needs of the child should be met. Local authorities face the problem of being under tremendous financial pressures. Education for disabled children is suffering, along with other education services, because of a lack of resources.
The Government need to look beyond benefits and examine the whole structure that is designed to help carers and their charges; that includes education and the health service. Although there is often integration between the health service and the social work department of a local authority, those services are overstretched and it is difficult to obtain the necessary level of care. Such matters must be examined.
Some of the proposals mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland are welcome. If the Government were prepared to extend the invalid care allowance to those over 65, that would be welcome and would find support throughout this Chamber. It is wrong that people over 65 cannot currently access that benefit. It was also mentioned that the benefit could continue to be payable eight weeks after the death of the person cared for; that would also be welcome. However, a longer-term solution must be considered. Many people give up their careers in their forties to look after relatives for many years, and it is extremely difficult for them to restart their careers later in life. After caring for a disabled person or elderly relative for many years, some people find it impossible to return to the job market. Serious work is required to find the best way of helping those people and to ensure that they are not penalised for their choice—one taken out of love and a sense of duty—to look after a disabled relative. It is important that the Government examine how to adjust for that.
The serious problem of overlapping benefits was mentioned. One of my constituents gave up work to look after her elderly mother. She was advised to apply for the carer's premium invalid care allowance, which she did. She was given the allowance but her mother's benefit was reduced by an equivalent amount. At the end of the day, she was no better off. In fact she was placed in great financial difficulty. The woman had given up her job to look after her mother, who would otherwise have had to be looked after at our expense as taxpayers, and she has been severely financially penalised by the way in which the benefits system works.
I was interested to hear the idea of a holistic approach that would consider all benefits together. The system requires simplification to avoid the situation where claims made for different benefits effectively cancel each other out. There should be a one-door approach so that the carer and the person being cared for can approach the Benefits Agency together and work out the best package for their needs. That would be better than having two applications going down different routes, both of which could take a long time to get through and eventually be pointless because they cancelled each other out. Will the Minister comment on that, and, when considering the report, look in detail at how the

177WH
benefits system can be streamlined to aid situations in which both the carer and the person cared for are on benefits? A holistic approach must go beyond benefits. All Government Departments must be involved in examining how we can help carers, for example through education. In Scotland, that must involve the Scottish Parliament and its agencies.
Carers come from all age groups. We must examine how to support young carers who are looking after parents whose schooling is severely disrupted, and how to put respite care in place to prevent that. Those children's opportunities for the future can be severely damaged because they have taken on the duty of looking after a disabled parent. Job opportunities for those who have been caring for some years also need investigation. Will the Minister examine such points, and comment on them in her reply to the debate?
9.56 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to contribute to the debate. We have some time left, as there have been surprisingly few contributions from Back Benchers. However, those that we have heard make up in quality what we have missed in quantity.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) not only for introducing the debate at such a timely moment—at the end of the consultation on changes to invalid care allowance—but for having spoken in such a clear and structured way. He has raised many issues, refusing to look at care narrowly. I am pleased to see the Minister from the Department of Health here although some issues that have been raised relate to areas well outside her Department. We recognise that she may have difficulty in giving very detailed responses to questions relating to education, or to the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland let several hon. Members know which areas he intended to cover and I am sure that that will aid the debate.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions or at least recognise that I have asked them. The consultation on invalid care allowance has been widely welcomed. The Liberal Democrat party proposed something similar. Although we are sure that the Government came to a decision separately and deliberatively, we are always pleased at such coincidence of intention about an important change.
The importance of all the proposed changes should not be understated. Sudden bereavement can have a disabling effect on carers. It is unreasonable to expect them to go straight from the caring place to the workplace—from the home to the job centre—immediately after bereavement. That problem will be solved if the Government implement the proposal to allow ICA to be paid for a further eight weeks, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said.
Uprating in line with the lower earnings limit is also welcome. I hope that that will be pegged for the future so that it will be seen to rise as the lower earnings limit rises. There is nothing more difficult in a Member of Parliament's postbag than the complex benefit cases
178WH
that we receive, especially in relation to the so-called overlapping benefits—a phrase that hides some of the complexities and three-letter abbreviations. When I get a letter asking whether the SDP is valid, I think back to my own political history as well as wondering what on earth is going on.
A huge amount of support is available to carers, if they only knew, through the Citizens Advice Bureau, through carers' associations, in my area set up by the Princess Royal Trust, and through tertiary referral from the citizens advice bureau to welfare rights organizations, which do tremendous work. I pay tribute to Peter Turville and his colleagues at Oxfordshire Welfare Rights, whom I have never known to lose an appeal. It is important to recognise the work that is being done.
It is difficult for carers to know that such help and advice exists. Many are too busy caring to realise that it is out there, or too stressed to access it. The Government should consider some form of wider advertising campaign so that the take-up of help and benefits is greater. The Exchequer may see some merit in unclaimed benefits, but it is the policy of all Ministries to try to ensure maximum take-up. It is such a complex area that there should be a way of ensuring, through outreach, that information is more accessible. For example, in my constituency a carers' centre has gone into GP surgeries to offer a carers' clinic, because GPs are often likely to pick up problems that carers are suffering as a result of work load or stress. Although that may not be the first thing that they mention to the doctor, it may be the underlying cause of their complaint. We should take a more holistic approach whereby GPs and other health care professionals think of referring a carer for social services assessment or reassessment and for help and advice with accessing benefits for themselves or for the person for whom they are caring.
As the hon. Members for Angus (Mr. Weir) and for Glasgow, Anniesland said, the earning potential of people with caring responsibilities is significantly impaired by their caring duties. Consequently, they are less likely to be able to contribute to a work-based pension scheme or to make provision through a private pension. Moreover, most of the burden of caring falls upon women, who traditionally have never had the opportunities in the workplace to improve their pension position over and above the state pension. Support for the basic state pension is—the Minister may not find this a fashionable word—a feminist act. We must deal with that indirect discrimination by making extra pension provision for women who may be caring for disabled children because of their traditional caring role or, owing to their greater longevity, are looking after a partner or parent who is disabled or otherwise in need of care. The debate about the appropriate level of the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee—which requires means testing—has taken too little account of their disproportionate impact on elderly carers.
While I am on the subject of support for carers who are discriminated against, the Minister may be aware of the question of pension sharing for partners who are not married. I have participated in many campaigns concerning people—of the opposite sex or the same sex—who live together but are not married, one of

179WH
whom has taken on a caring role and has been unable to benefit from bereavement benefits from the pension scheme where the person cared for has a pension scheme in the state sector. Traditionally, the private sector has made much greater allowance for that, and it is sad that the state sector has failed in that regard.
The statutory public sector pension scheme has failed to keep pace with the modern era. A carer who has worked in the health service for his or her entire working life as a nurse—a relatively low-paid job—and who is caring for another nurse, will find that the NHS superannuation scheme does not recognise their partnership and position of care I hope that the Minister will provide for less well-paid workers the same benefits that her colleagues and other hon. Members voted for themselves after considering a resolution for another public sector pension scheme—the MPs' pension scheme.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland also mentioned the importance of assessment for carers. There is a statutory right to assessment, but many carers say, "Yes, we have a statutory right to an assessment of our needs, but do we have a similar right to access the care for those needs that the assessment states is appropriate?" To judge by letters that I have received, the squeeze on social services funding that occurred during the last Parliament is a major problem not only in my constituency but in the whole of Oxfordshire and throughout the country. Funding for social services, which is so important in providing help and respite care for carers, was cut in real terms in the first two years of the last Parliament. Overall, funding barely rose during the last Parliament, despite an ageing population and the additional duties that were imposed on social services departments.
Yet again, Oxfordshire and many other local authorities face a squeeze on spending. It is the non-statutory duties—the discretionary provision of services—that are affected. Often, that impacts on support for carers. As we know, there is pressure on beds in the intermediate care sector. When there is such pressure, respite care, for which such beds are often used, is squeezed. Is there a strategy, plan or target—on this rare occasion, I will accept a target from the Minister—in respect of the availability of respite care beds in the NHS or, as a second preference, in social services? In Oxfordshire and many other places, the reduction in community hospital beds serving that function has proved damaging to respite care.
Of course, the Government recognise that without proper provision of respite care, carers are often unable to continue their work. Such a breakdown of care roles can lead to an acute hospital admission. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland rightly pointed out the amount of what is in effect unpaid work that the state gets out of carers. Official estimates of the value of such work range from £34 billion in 1993 to £42 billion now. Such figures show the possible effect on social services expenditure of failing to provide adequately for continuation of the caring role.
In both social services and in the health service, the pressure for early intervention in care should start with the carer. It is the carer who knows best how well a person is coping. In terms of greater care needs, carers sometimes know better than even health care professionals the likely prognosis for those in care. The
180WH
early provision of extra support and information for carers can increase the independence of those cared for, which, as we recognise, is one of the Government's aims.
The story that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland tells about his mother is salutary. It shows that even someone who knows their way around the system can find it difficult to combine the burden of caring with accessing all available care in good time. It is important that we recognise the need to empower carers. That could be done by making available a recognised advocacy service to provide carers with advice. Does the Minister have plans to use NHS Direct as a way of ensuring that carers have access to, or at least the ability to be referred to, the appropriate sources? A one-stop shop is a nice idea, although we recognise that NHS Direct may have to refer, or continue to refer, to more appropriate sources.
The hon. Member for Angus raised the issue of carers with responsibility for children having to fight for a statement of special educational needs, a continuation of that statement, or the meeting of the needs identified in that statement. I remember having many long debates about this matter with the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), now the Minister of State, Department of Health, and I know that she continues her interest in that subject in her current duties. Local education authorities are variable in their ability to communicate as well as provide, and I recognise the tremendous work done by the National Autistic Society and the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice in providing advice to carers and parents who have written to me.
It is appropriate that this debate is followed by a debate on long-term care. I shall not stray into that area, but it would be appropriate to mention issues such as continued independence and people living at home who require long-term care. Those issues relate to the needs of carers and the appropriate treatment of that sensitive time when care at home breaks down, often because the carer is ill. The availability of prompt, appropriate and accessible respite for the carer, if he or she becomes ill, and for the cared-for person, needs to be developed to provide a safety net to enable people with caring responsibilities to continue in that role.
In debates on health service funding, not only in the House but in the media, I hope that more attention will be given to the important role played by social services and carers. If budgets for social services and carers are not increased in line with the needs of an ageing population, which are often recognised in the health service, but not in relation to those areas, there will be a greater gap between what is needed and what is available for the carers—the heroes and heroines of today's society.
10.12 am
Mr John Lyons: I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), and by the hon. Members for Angus (Mr. Weir) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).
The debate has included some wonderful examples of care throughout the UK. No matter which survey or assessment we look at, one consistent point emerges: the

181WH
number of people who are caring and the extent of the care that they provide in the communities that they serve are underestimated. I am also struck by the clear disparity between constituencies: no two constituencies seem to work in the same way. No matter where one looks, there are different approaches: in some places the approach is very good, but elsewhere a lot of attention and support is needed.
As was discussed earlier, carers need to have access to and clear and concise information about the available services. All too often, the attitude seems to be that if carers do not make an approach, they will never find out what is available. We need to reverse that. I welcome the efforts of primary health care trusts, GPs and others to identify carers in communities. That objective has been lost somewhere along the line. We must ensure that GPs and other primary care and social services have that responsibility.
Earlier, the point was made that we have a record of children's educational needs, and there is no reason why we should not have an assessment of the needs of carers and the persons for whom they care. Again, that could be done throughout the United Kingdom so as to ensure that we introduce regulations and support for every carer, on which they could rely, knowing that they have support for what they do and that that support is consistent throughout the country.
Clearly, if we are serious about joined-up health care, whether it is primary care or social care, we must ensure that we do not have only a theoretical approach. It must be a living reality for people out there. Joined-up government is not simply a political matter; people should be able to access services without hitting major problems. That is the core of the argument and the debate. People need positive support to try to make life that bit easier. Accessing services, benefits and support should not be an obstacle course; they should be provided in a seamless way, so that carers are confident that they receive proper support and that the person for whom they care has proper support, and so that nothing that is properly due is denied to the carer and the person being cared for. It is important that we continue to emphasise that.
We must re-emphasis and accept that caring occurs across the age range—from the youngest person to the oldest. I recently received a letter from a woman of 70 asking for support, and I immediately asked myself why the carer was not writing. The person of 70 was the carer; she was caring for her mum of 93. She thought nothing of that and had done it without support for a long time, but now—understandably at the age of 70—felt that she was reaching a point where she was letting her mother down and could no longer continue to do what she had done for years. We must recognise that that is not an isolated example, but that it happens throughout the country, from the very youngest to the very oldest—that is the age range of caring. We cannot allow people to talk about carers being of only one age because it occurs across all age ranges.
We must be serious and, if we value caring, we must put our money where our mouth is and say that caring is not a cost, but an investment. If we treat it as such, we will treat it in the proper and right way.
10.18 am
Annabelle Ewing: I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) for securing the debate. Many important matters have been debated and there is a reasonable consensus among those hon. Members who have spoken, which will please the Minister. We all agree that carers play an excellent and key role in our society and none of us underestimates the importance of carers to us all. However, having talked to carers in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland, I know that they feel badly let down by the policies of this Government and the previous Government. We must ensure that carers are treated properly and given the respect that they deserve, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I must question whether the limited nature of the proposals that he mentioned will go far enough toward securing those objectives.
I will keep my comments brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) has outlined several specific questions that he would like the Minister to address. However a few points that have arisen merit particular mention. The first concerns the news that carers are to receive a payment after the death of their dependants. That is a welcome development, but why has a period of eight weeks been proposed? What is so special about an eight-week period? Why has a longer period not been proposed, and if that is not possible, will the Minister consider whether an element of discretion could be built in with regard to applications for such payments?
As hon. Members have mentioned, and as my mailbag reveals, a key problem with the benefits system, aside from its complexity, is that discretion is seldom built in to allow an appeal tribunal to examine the particular circumstances of a case and to make a discretionary decision. That is unusual, because an element of discretion is usually allowed, and that is the mark of a fair system. Will the Minister consider, with respect to the eight-week cut-off point, whether an element of discretion could be built in?
The need for more information has been mentioned, and that is of key importance. Many carers do not know what they are entitled to, and that is shocking. I ask the Minister to examine that problem, as it could easily be addressed.
Respite breaks for carers are not specifically covered by the proposals under discussion but, as the subject is being debated, I ask the Minister to outline the Government's intentions in that regard. When one talks to carers they say that one of the major problems that they face is that they do not have sufficient opportunity to take breaks from their arduous duties.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland referred to the £191 million package to help carers over the coming three years, but that figure should be put into perspective; £750 million was spent on the millennium dome, which was a colossal waste of money.
Finally, I wish to express my agreement with the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members about the difficulties involved in the overlapping benefits system. It is cynical to offer with one hand what one takes away with the other. That matter should be addressed, as it would help carers, as well as everyone else who has to go through the tortuously complex benefits process.

183WH
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to my questions.
10.22 am
Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate. It addresses a subject that is becoming increasingly important and the hon. Gentleman has personal experience of the daily pitfalls and concerns that affect millions of ordinary people.
It is a pity that more hon. Members are not present. I feel like the token Englishman, as I am the only contributor who does not represent a constituency north of the border. However, I am sure that that is an accident, as the concerns that have been raised apply to the entire United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) hails from west of the English border.
It is also appropriate that, as has been mentioned, yesterday marked the end of the consultation period on the proposed changes to the carers allowance, as it is now likely to be called. However, today's debate concerns the often neglected army of millions of carers in communities throughout the country, without whom the national health service and social services would be unable to function. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said, there are approximately 5.7 million carers and many hidden carers—at least one in seven of the population. A carer is not only someone in receipt of benefits in recognition of that role. Many care for people on a day-to-day basis, and not only for those with high profile, long-term and chronic diseases such as Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's disease. Many care for immobile spouses, people with learning difficulties or disabled parents, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) mentioned earlier.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) struck a chord when he spoke about older carers. Although it may have been rare for him to have been approached by an older carer in her seventies, as my constituency includes Worthing, which has the largest elderly population in the country, I regularly meet people in their seventies who are caring for parents in their nineties—many people in Worthing are in their nineties—and they cannot continue to do so. Some people have cared for elderly parents for 10, 20, 30, or 40 years and they are physically exhausted. That is commonplace in my part of the country.
It is not only the elderly who need care. Many cases involve children and young adults. For carers involved in such cases, the responsibility may continue for much longer than for those caring for elderly parents.
People are living longer, so the problem is getting worse. If we examine the complexion of carers, we find that most are women, in an age in which increasing numbers of women are going out to work. That means that the pool of carers is decreasing. Also, as we have heard, the impact on potential careers and earnings for such carers is severe, which has repercussions such as the lack of savings and pension plans to contribute to a carer's future prospects for long-term care.
Today's debate is an opportunity to acknowledge and praise the work of the unsung army of carers, to pay tribute to organisations such as the Carers National
184WH
Association that provides essential support, and to raise the profile of everyday issues that affect the millions of carers who we are in danger of being taken for granted. It is in all of our interests to make the job of carers easier. Rather than placing more regulations and onerous requirements in their way, we should be asking them, "How can we make your job easier and provide you with the tools to do it?" Without carers enormous costs would fall on the state.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland mentioned some figures that surely underestimate the problem. Glaring statistics such as carers earning the equivalent of £1 an hour are appalling. He also mentioned, rightly, that the carers allowance is not only a financial help, but a recognition of the status of carers. I am aware of the debate on the problem of overlapping benefit. People who receive a state pension no longer receive carers allowance. Someone who retires from a job can take it easy, but there is no retirement for someone caring for an elderly relative, even at the age of 85, probably until that relative dies. There is no retirement for many carers. They do not get the carers allowance after the age of 65 if they are in receipt of the state pension.
I welcome many of the changes that the Government announced to the invalid care allowance and some of the proposals currently subject to consultation. We welcomed much of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which came into effect just over six months ago, earlier this year. It is right that under the terms of that Act services are provided directly to carers to help them in their caring roles and to help them maintain their own health and well-being. We recognise the terms of that Act, which highlighted families as the natural and appropriate places for caring for children, which is absolutely right.
At the same time, as many hon. Members have already said, we need to recognise the extra duties being placed on already hard-pressed social services departments, in many cases without the full necessary funding associated with those additional requirements. For example, under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, carers grant is to be paid to local authorities at 100 per cent. of the £70 million being given for carers grants for 2001–02, which will ostensibly require no contribution from local authorities. Will the Minister give an undertaking that that will be so next year, so that money is not drained from hard-pressed social services departments through the back door, having placed the extra requirements on them?
An issue of local autonomy is involved, which must be balanced with ensuring that the money goes to the right places. Carers grant guidance states:
"Local councils are expected to spend their allocations broadly in line with the following Government targets except where there is a strong case to be made for doing otherwise."
Much criticism has been made, in many cases rightly, of the prescriptive, ring-fenced nature of so-called additional funding for local authorities, especially social service departments, which has impeded the flexibility of local social services departments to respond to local circumstances. Beside that, however, we must balance the fact that in some cases funds are being allocated to improve provision for carers, especially in respect of respite care, but are sometimes arrested at source because local authorities view the money as a way of offsetting the costs of care that they already provide.

185WH
It is essential not to tip the balance too far either way. Social services departments are stretched on all fronts, as all hon. Members will agree from their experience with their constituents, whether in child care, care for the elderly, residential care or care in the community. This year there is already a budgeted overspend above standard spending assessment among social services departments of some £916 million, or 10.2 per cent. Authorities must spend more than that merely to fulfil the minimum requirements placed on them. In my area of West Sussex, which has the largest number of elderly people in the country, the social services department needs an extra £12 million merely to stand still and fulfil the extra requirements that the Government have placed on it. We received £7 million, giving a £5 million shortfall.
The problem is getting worse simply because of the demographics involved. By 2007, the number of pensioners in this country will for the first time outnumber the number of people under 16. Over the next 20 years, the number of over-85-year-olds, the most expensive to provide care for, will double to more than 2.2 million. The chances of an over-65-year-old man requiring residential care is 9 per cent., and for women the figure is 13 per cent. Those figures do not take account of nursing care. That means extra requirements on social services, care in the community and carers looking after people who do not enter residential and nursing homes.
An estimated 700,000 people in the United Kingdom have dementia—one in 20 of the population aged over 65, and one in five of the population aged over 80. As hon. Members have said on several occasions, there is a big disparity in the level and standard of guidance and care provided, a point made by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden—
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. We are in danger of straying to the next debate on care of the long-term elderly. I understand the connection, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind.
Mr. Loughton: I am grateful, Mr. Stevenson. There is a strong connection, but I am concentrating on people with problems such as dementia and Alzheimer's disease who are cared for at home and are not in long-term residential care. The Alzheimer's Disease Society has said that 40 per cent. of those who care for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease have less than one hour a day to themselves, and that places enormous pressure on them.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred to respite care, which is an important consideration. I held a public meeting in my constituency for representatives of disability groups, which included many carers, and a matter that arose time and again was the shortage of respite care facilities for hard-pressed carers. It is crucial that the Government recognise the extent of the problem—the simple voucher system that they have introduced is not sufficient. It is crucial that appropriate cover is available for respite care and that places are available in residential homes, but 100 care homes are closing every
186WH
month. It is essential to recognise the necessity of providing respite care while carers are trained. Carers need training and they need cover to enable them to undertake that training.
Earlier this summer the Carers National Association carried out a survey of 2,000 carers. It highlighted a number of weaknesses in the system. Those weaknesses are worth repeating. Hospital discharges are increasingly likely to be poorly planned, timed and handled. That was highlighted in the survey entitled, "You can take him home now". In 1998, 25 per cent. of patients had to return to hospital within two months of discharge, but that figure has leapt to 43 per cent., which has led to enormous extra pressure on the shortage of acute beds, particularly when there is a bed-blocking problem. In my local hospital, 10 per cent. of beds are blocked by people for whom residential care cannot be found.
The survey also found a huge drop in the satisfaction level of carers since 1998; 72 per cent. of those surveyed said that they had had bad experiences and 43 per cent. said that they had been given too little help. Carers are picking up the pieces when hospitals fail. The number of carers who receive a care plan has fallen from 28 per cent. to 20 per cent. during the past three years. The number who are consulted before discharge has fallen from 71 per cent. to 64 per cent. and the number who say that their comments and concerns had been ignored has increased from 36 per cent. to 45 per cent. Many carers are feeling unloved, ignored and neglected and the Government must address the problem urgently.
I turn to the need for greater employer flexibility. Many companies are rightly latching on to the fact that it is important to recognise the pressures of caring for children or elderly parents if their employees are to remain healthy and to contribute fully as employees. At the moment, there is one pensioner aged over 65 for every 3.7 working people in this country. By 2020, that ratio will have decreased to 1:3.1 and, alarmingly, by 2040 there will be barely two people of working age for every person aged over 65. The elderly population is increasing rapidly and those who care for elderly patients are likely to be experienced senior employees in their late 40s and 50s whom companies can ill afford to lose.
I pay tribute to companies such as Centrica, which recognises the problem. Its employment policy provides free access to telephones for personal calls for people who must deal with day-to-day matters for their charges; it allows flexible hours and breaks for carers with additional paid leave to match the caring that they may have to undertake. Companies should be more innovative and creative in their thinking.
Carers should feature prominently in the cycle of treatment, post-treatment aftercare and long-term care in the community. They should feature in patient plans for those who require care. That would also benefit hospitals by reducing the avoidable re-admissions that occur all too often. Better information should be available from general practitioners to carers to take the pressure off them and reference has been made to carers clinics and that is an interesting idea. We need greater interaction between carers and social services to ensure the right number and level of expertise of home visits, the availability of the right equipment to those with

187WH
disabilities and the maintenance of that equipment. The need for respite care and training should be recognised and local support groups should be available. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland suggested that advice numbers and hot lines might also be available.
Above all, carers must be valued by the Government and all of us and their essential work should be recognised by the Government and employers better than at present. I shall repeat my opening comment that they save the country, the NHS and social services an inordinate amount of money and it is incumbent on all of us to make their essential and thankless job as easy as possible.
10.41 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing what has turned out to be a very wide-ranging debate. The contributions from all hon. Members have given me the central message that the issue is not simply a matter for the Department of Health; the needs of carers and their families affect policy across the board. That message has been a benefit of the debate today. I shall try to deal with as many specific points as possible, but I shall also ensure that, where relevant, Ministers in other Departments are made aware of what has been said today to ensure that we provide a co-ordinated response to the many issues that have been raised.
My hon. friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland set out the extent of carers in this country. We have almost 6 million carers, including around 1.7 million who devote 20 hours a week to caring, and 855,000 who devote in excess of 50 hours a week to caring. That is an enormous contribution and we all echo the comments that have been made today and pay tribute to the amount of work, dedication, commitment and sheer energy that carers provide in looking after their friends, family and neighbours.
Most caring is undertaken by close relatives, but society is changing dramatically. In modern society, families are often separated, sometimes by vast distances. In times gone by, families lived close together or next door and could pop in and keep an eye on people. Today, families are more fragmented and it is more difficult for communities to provide the support structures that many of us have known in the past.
The age structure of the population is also changing dramatically. During the next 30 years, the number of people aged more than 65 will rise from 17 per cent. to 24 per cent. of the population. We hope that our policies will ensure—the evidence for that is becoming clear—that older people will be fitter and healthier and will enjoy many more years of active life, but we must recognise that there will be a much greater number of older people in the community.
Almost half of us have the chance of becoming carers and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland illustrated graphically the shock that many people suffer when they suddenly become carers and have to obtain access to the range of available information. Carers have a tremendous job in juggling their caring responsibilities with their work and families. Around 2.7 million people combine a caring role with
188WH
work and, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, we must find ways of ensuring that employers and services support working carers so that they do not have to give up work when they take on a caring role. That is important economically, but it is also important in terms of social isolation and social exclusion, and the respect that carers need to be shown. Carers do not work simply to draw in income; many of them need to keep the connection with their work, through continued training and support, to ensure that their lives are not completely devastated by taking on caring responsibilities.
The Government have started from an important point, by asking carers what services they want to be provided. That must be reflected across a range of policies. We start by asking patients—the people for whom we provide services—and the public about their priorities, rather than assuming that we know best. Most carers said that they suffered health problems; many have financial difficulties and problems with stress and isolation within their communities. As hon. Members have said, we must ensure that we provide a joined-up response to what carers have told us, by utilising our various regeneration projects, giving primary care support—which is absolutely crucial in the community—and financial assistance to those in work and to those unable to work due to their responsibilities.
We must also help people make the transition from caring into employment, as that is a difficult time for people. The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) raised that issue, which is a key one for us. She also referred to the payment of the carers allowance for the eight-week period following the period of bereavement. That is linked to the period for which we pay the carers premium in relation to income support; clearly, there must be a cut-off point in the provision for that transition. The hon. Lady made an important point about the difficulties that people face when their circumstances change dramatically, but we are aligning the benefit system to reduce the number of anomalies in it. Hon. Members have referred to the difficulty in finding one's way around an incredibly complicated system. We recognise the points that all hon. Members have made about overlapping benefits—all of us would wish there to be more consistency in the benefits system.
I pay tribute to the carers centres that are springing up in many parts of the community, many of which are supported by the Princess Royal Trust. Those centres can act as one-stop shops, where carers and their families can find help with benefits and social activities. Hon. Members have not so far highlighted the wonderful things that many carers do when they get together; they provide a great deal of support for each other. They do not simply look for support from outside agencies; they get together in self-help groups, in social and family activities. I am personally aware of the tremendous range of facilities that carers centres can provide in our local communities.
We have also launched "Looking after someone", which is part of the Government website. More people are gaining access to the internet and to information online. The website contains a whole range of information for carers, about benefits, support services and facilities in their communities. Perhaps we should make an effort to publicise the breadth of information that is becoming available.

189WH
We have taken a great deal of action for carers in the past few years, based on our strategy from February 1999, when we published "Caring about carers". That was a national strategy to ensure that people obtain information, support and financial help. When that strategy was being developed, the one thing that carers highlighted was the need to have some time out from their responsibilities; they need to find some respite and do something simply for themselves as a break from the pressures of the week. That is why we introduced the carers grant in February 1999, for which £70 million has been set aside this year. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked us to assure him that that would be available in future years. I can give him some good news: the £70 million for this year will increase to £85 million next year and to £100 million in 2003–04. That is ring-fenced funding, which should ensure that the services are provided. It is ring fenced because carers said, "We want that money to be available for breaks and respite care. It must be spent on those crucial services." This is an example of the Government responding to the views of carers who have told us their priorities. It will help local authorities to ensure that carers get the breaks that they want.
Exactly how local authorities spend the money is a matter for them, but we shall monitor their expenditure because we want to ensure that we obtain value for money and that carers obtain value for our investment. The balance between local discretion and national standards is a careful one for us to strike. When carers tell us what they want, we are determined to provide a system that channels money to them and their families to provide crucial breaks. We have already set up a system through the King's Fund that will evaluate that expenditure, so we shall be able to obtain evidence of what local authorities are doing.
It is important that we share good practice. Rather than continually reinventing the wheel, it may be that one local authority has a marvellous scheme from which others can learn; sharing ideas will be extremely important.
It is also important that we respond to carers' individual needs, such as when they want a break, the circumstances in which that can be arranged and what help is appropriate for the person for whom they care. One size does not necessarily fit all because people have different requirements in their families and personal circumstances. Involving carers in designing their breaks will therefore be important.
We have introduced the right for carers to have an assessment made of their needs. I am therefore delighted that there is consensus on the importance of caring services. Sometimes relatively small things can help carers to do their work better, such as practical help at home or the provision of taxi fares. Transport is an issue that has not been raised today, but it is crucial to the independence of carers and those for whom they care. It is important to try to help such schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, he has pursued benefit issues to good effect for some time. The changes to invalid care allowance, which is to be renamed carers allowance to reflect properly the job that carers do and to give them the
190WH
status, respect and recognition that is fundamental to our policies, mean that it will be extended to carers aged over 65. All Members who have participated in today's debate have welcomed that. The lower earnings limit will also be increased to £72 a week, which will greatly assist people who are able to work as well as to care. The allowance will also be extended to eight weeks after the death of the cared-for person. That package has been issued for consultation, which ended yesterday. It will be possible to introduce those changes by the new procedure of a regulatory reform order, which means that we can get it done faster than would previously have been the case. We shall do that as soon as we can.
In terms of financial support, from April next year the second state pension will boost the second tier pension of low earners, carers and some disabled people. There will also be a reduction in council tax for people with disabilities who live in band A properties and their carers. That package of financial measures will underpin the independence of carers and their families.
Several Members raised the issue of young carers. They are a hidden group who are not immediately visible in the community, which is something that the Government take seriously. Young carers are often faced by the prospect of many years of caring responsibilities. Ensuring that they get access to education and social opportunities so that they can, as far as possible, live the same lives as other youngsters in their communities is key. We must ensure that young people have access to the same facilities as anyone else. It is their right, and it is our duty to provide for it.
Our research shows that in years gone by the hidden group of young carers has not been as high a priority as it should have been. We have therefore introduced the quality protects programme to improve children's social services. We have also funded a project to help the Children's Society to take forward a young carers initiative. The society consults young carers directly about their views and needs and about exactly what should be put in place. It is fundamental to our approach that we will not tell young carers what they need. We want to talk to them about their lives and what they think is important. We want to develop a database and website to ensure that people have information, and a practical guide—a resource pack—for young people, so that they feel supported. They need to know that they are no longer the invisible carers, carrying a huge burden of emotional and physical care, and that people out there will provide accessible help when and where they need it.
We are making progress in helping disabled young people, through examining ways in which the quality protects programme can help a further 6,000 disabled children and their families by 2002.
The complexity of the benefits system has been mentioned, and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raised the possibility of pension sharing for unmarried partners. That has been discussed in Parliament. His points about public sector superannuation schemes were valid and important. I will take up the matter in relation to benefits schemes, although on the many occasions when this has been discussed, issues about the structure of the pension schemes have been raised.

191WH
I will dicuss the complexity of the benefits system and the impact of overlapping benefits with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions. I recognise that it can be difficult for carers to find their way through the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland referred to the serious problem of identifying carers. Much work is being done with general practitioners in that respect I understand that an additional question in the census will enable us to identify carers in the community. When we collate the census information, we will be able to add further details to the effective database that we already have about where carers are located. We can then target the best help to them and their families. That is crucial.
Several hon. Members suggested a helpline or a one-stop shop for advertising services. NHS Direct is a gateway into health and social services, but we are also piloting Care Direct, which is specifically designed to target people who are caring, including those who are elderly, disabled or children. That will tell people about the range of services available for them locally. People often want to know what is available for them in their communities, rather than national information. Care Direct will provide a good access point into the range of caring and support services, including benefits, aids and adaptations, and the support available through housing and education. It will enable us to join up the various services that national and local government provide for carers and their families. We will be interested to see the results of the Care Direct pilots, and I can undertake to keep my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland informed about those services.
Important issues have been raised in today's debate. As the hon. Member for Perth said, we have had a degree of consensus, and I am delighted by that. We all want to do much more to recognise the enormous contribution made by carers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland quoted stunning figures showing the value in financial terms of carers contributions. In addition we must recognise the time, energy and commitment that carers give to their friends, family and neighbours. Many carers in our country look after their friends and family because it is what they have always done and what they want to do. The Government must recognise that our job is to put in place support mechanisms to enable them to do that, while retaining their independence, dignity and respect in the community. We are determined to do that, and I am sure that all hon. Members want us to recognise the tremendous contribution that carers make to our communities.

Elderly People (Long-Term Care)
11 am
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this extremely important debate. It is about one of the most important matters that we can discuss, because in the long run it affects us all in one way or another. It is a truism to say that the way in which elderly people are treated is the measure of a civilised society, but I have great concerns about the level of provision and the way in which it is organised. Those concerns originated some years ago, when I was for a time actively engaged in discussions with care home owners and my social services department. They were given added immediacy a few months ago with the very sudden closure of a nursing home on the edge of my constituency, as a result of which the residents, who had lived there for a long time, were given just a week or so to find new places to live. None of us would wish that to happen to elderly and poorly people, who are some of the most vulnerable in our society.
I do not use the term "crisis" loosely—it is often overworked in politics—but I fear that we truly face a crisis in long-term care. A crisis is not merely developing but has already developed in many parts of the country, especially where there is a preponderance of elderly people. The Minister will be familiar with the national figures. About 50,000 long-term beds have been lost over the past five years, with an accelerating loss of 28,000 beds over the past two years. That has been accompanied by loss of placements and loss of front-line care staff—not only in care for the elderly but across the board within social services.
In my county of Somerset, we are not immune to that trend. Indeed, the west country has a significant population of elderly people. In the year to April, Somerset saw a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of available nursing home places. Again, there is an accelerating trend—a further 200 beds have already been lost this year since April and it is reasonable to expect that at least another 100 will be lost before the end of the year. That is bad enough in itself. However, there is a specific problem within that bald figure, in that we have particularly lost places for sufferers from the various dementias. That is a difficult group of people to cater for effectively, and once places have been lost it is much harder to find alternatives for them.
Along with the loss of nursing care places, we have lost a significant part of our home care service. In some parts of the county it is difficult to provide an adequate level of domiciliary care, not least because providers are finding it extremely difficult to recruit and retain suitable staff. I underline the word "suitable", because not everybody has the vocation or the ability to do such demanding work for very little pay. It is hard to ensure that sufficient numbers of staff are in the right places. As a result, it is not unusual for there to be a four to six-week wait for the delivery of larger-scale care packages. That is not something that we in Somerset wish to see.
The automatic corollary of the loss of nursing home and residential home places is the problem of bed-blocking. In the south-west, there has been a phenomenal increase—54.1 per cent. in two years—in the number of delayed discharges. That is worrying in

193WH
anybody's book, and it has knock-on effects for our hospitals. It makes it difficult, for example, to transfer patients from accident and emergency units to ordinary surgical or medical wards. That affects staff morale, because they are unable to do the job that they would like to do in the way that they would like to do it. Delayed discharges also directly affect the patients themselves. They affect their well-being in the ordinary sense of the word, but a prolonged stay in hospital can also often lead to an increased risk of hospital-acquired infections. That is a worrying prospect, given that, as we must remember, we are dealing with elderly people.
I do not wish to gloss over or neglect a major national policy difference between my party and the party of government in the United Kingdom, but I do not wish to dwell on it either, as it has been sufficiently advertised elsewhere. Of course, the difference exists only between my party and the UK Government; we have no such difficulties with our partners in government in Scotland. Nevertheless, in England there is disagreement as to whether personal care should be paid for. We believe that, as the royal commission said, it should be paid for.
The differentiation that the Government have introduced into the process of delivering service is artificial and deeply damaging. Deciding whether care should be paid for on the basis of who provides it rather than according to the type of care provided seems an absurd way to proceed. That has a particular resonance in respect of dementia, which I have raised before on the Floor of the House. It is impossible to draw a line between services that comprise personal care and nursing care. It seems that the only definition that applies is whether a registered nurse provides the service, and that cannot be right.
I am also concerned about the position of disabled people. They need support, whether they are in their own homes or in residential homes.
Mr. David Drew: Another problem is the handling of information on individuals and homes. Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with minimum data sets? They would be a credible way in which to improve the handling of information, thereby helping those involved in personal and nursing care. I hope that he agrees that, at the moment, there is a real shortfall in the system.
Mr. Heath: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for his intervention. We need a much fuller assessment of individuals' needs; to try to make such assessments prior to, or at the point of, admission is frankly absurd. What is needed is a period of reflection, in which an assessment can be made and a proper database established and maintained according to the needs of the individual patient. Such a model is not unusual in other areas of care in this country; nevertheless, it has not been espoused in this case.
Having criticised the Government for this basic policy difference—as I said, although I do not shy away from that difference, I do not wish to dwell on it—I congratulate them on recognising that there is an immediate problem. I wholeheartedly welcome the new money that has been provided—an additional £100 million this year and £200 million next year. That
194WH
underlines the Government's recognition of the real problem that exists in various parts of the country. I appreciate that this is significant money; it is not peanuts. However, it must be viewed against the assessment by the directors of social services and the Local Government Association, which has bluntly stated that a £1 billion shortfall exists in the funding of care for vulnerable people across the country. Set against that context, obviously much more must be done.
I will not be churlish. I welcome the money that has been given to Somerset's social services department to assist it in achieving its goals—I understand it to be £726,000. However, it is unfortunate that that share is proportionately less than the staff at Somerset might have expected. Traditionally, Somerset has been rather good at providing investment and the services that people need.
Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about the allocation of £300 million; some £100 million for the current financial year and £200 million for next year. I understand that the vast proportion of the £100 million goes to the worst performers, which seems to be a change in the Government's position. I hope that the £200 million for next year will be allocated on a more rational and equitable basis.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making exactly my point. We do not know how the money will be distributed next year, but I fervently hope that the Minister will tell us that it will be on a formula basis. There may be arguments about the basic formula, but the present lack of formula is a perverse way of providing incentives and recognising the needs of local authority departments.
What are the causes of the marked reduction in the number of care places available over a short period? A number of problems play a part in the decision to close a home or reduce the number of places. Fear of the impact of the Government's new standards for care homes is part of the equation. The staff of some homes know that such standards will never be met, while others have an exaggerated fear of what may be imposed on them in future and do not want to be part of that game. For some, the new standards represent the last straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
One argument is that a more flexible approach is needed that recognises the paramount needs of the residents and the fact that they are not always best served by the closure of a home. Closure of a home is the worst outcome for an individual resident. A more flexible approach may be of great benefit. Another problem is the shortage of staff, not only of trained nurses but of the untrained staff who provide home care in many cases. Such staff, who are traditionally low paid and predominantly female—the two often go together—are asked to take on extraordinarily complex and demanding tasks. Many of us would never wish to find ourselves engaged in such tasks.
The competition with the private sector means that many people are tempted away by easier and better paid billets outside the public sector. The arrival of a new

195WH
supermarket is a disaster for the local care homes and social services providers. A Tesco store opens and suddenly no staff are left to make beds and care for elderly residents in homes. We must recognise that market forces demand that something be done to provide better pay and conditions for the staff in this important sector.
Another element is property values. In my part of the world we have seen those values increasing, especially at the upper end of the market. Large country houses have traditionally been used for residential homes, and the property value of such buildings is vastly in excess of the value of the business. The constant temptation must be to forget about running a business and take the capital sum offered by someone in the City who wants to play at being a squire in Somerset. That is happening more and more often.
The fees payable also constitute a problem. The average increase in local authority fees paid to care homes is around 2 per cent., as against a 5 per cent. average increase for those who pay privately for residential or nursing care. The equation does not work. The problem for care home owners is that they do not have dealings with the rest of the country—they deal only with the social services department where they are situated. As far as those owners know, the local authority is simply mean and not prepared to pay them the rate for the job. That is certainly not the case in Somerset, however, and I am sure that is not the case in the vast majority of social services areas, but because owners see only those with which they have dealings, they do not understand that this is a national issue. Can local authorities afford to pay sustainable fees to maintain the sector and placements that they need?
We often say that throwing cash at a problem is not an answer, but in this case cash is the most important single factor. We must get enough money into the system to achieve sustainable fee levels without losing the other care professionals for which social services departments are responsible. Many departments could be forced to provide cash for care services for the elderly at the expense of other important services for vulnerable people.
We need to find a way of putting more cash into the system, although not preferentially—a point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). We must not produce fee competition between neighbouring authorities. Some authorities may find that, because they have responded poorly in the past, they have more money in their budget and can pay higher fees to attract staff and placements from neighbouring authorities. That cannot be the answer, nor can it be the answer simply to exhort social services departments to do more. We know from the Local Government Association that three quarters of all social services departments overspent their budgets last year, which represents a total overspend of £183 million. That is a substantial overspend; if I were a council leader, I would be worried about my social services department, or any other department, overspending to such an extent. There is clearly more than a little strain on the system when social services expenditure by local authorities is £1 billion over the standard spending assessment—the Government assessment of what those departments should be spending. The system is not functioning properly.
196WH
What are the answers? There are no easy answers and I do not want to abuse the intelligence of anyone listening to this debate by pretending that there are. However, we should have local sustainable strategies that involve the private sector, the home care sector, the user groups—if that is the appropriate term—the health authorities and the local authorities. I know that in Somerset that is very much part of the way in which the local authority has thought previously and continues to think about dealing with the problems. However, the Government must support sensible strategies that are put forward with the cash to make them work.
To return to a matter that was raised earlier, there is a need to identify what funds will be available in the future. They should be on a formula basis, not a speculative favoured-son basis or any other; they should be fair and respond to demonstrable need. The funding stream should continue into the future.
It is important not to forget that there is a need to respond to the increasing demand for home care and domiciliary care. Many years ago when I was in practice as an optician, I did a lot of domiciliary work and I was not paid a penny for it. There was no recognition of domiciliary work in optics at that time and I was paid as if I was in my surgery. The fact that I had driven halfway across the countryside to see one bedridden elderly lady was neither here nor there to the national health service. It did not care about that, or whether I did it or not. However, I did, and so did many other professionals. We must recognise that domiciliary care is promoted to give people the independence to live in their own home. If we are to promote that, we must fund it properly and recognise the difficulties that it involves. We also need flexibility in the application of care home standards, and the Government would do well to signal that clearly to the private home sector so that some of its worst fears, at this stage, are allayed.
Most important, we need a national review of the capacity that we have—or rather do not have—to deal with long-term care. We must recognise that there is a long lead-in for any changes in that capacity. Homes are not built overnight, and staff are not trained overnight. There is a significant shortfall in capacity, and we need to do something about it nationally, so we need a clear national strategy.
I would love the consensus that exists in Scotland to extend to England and, dare I say, Wales. At present it is not on the table, although it may be. Policies in Scotland sometimes have a habit of eventually seeping their way through the system and become the national policy of the United Kingdom Government. The battle may not be lost. Meanwhile, I urge the Minister to address the matter, which is of desperate importance. I suspect that many hon. Members will recount their own constituency experiences and express that same view.
11.23 am
Hywel Williams: I am particularly glad to be given the opportunity to speak because I wrote Plaid Cymru's submission to the Sutherland royal commission on long-term care. We in Plaid Cymru agreed with the recommendations of the royal commission and many older people in Wales looked forward to the Government acting on its

197WH
recommendations, particularly those on funding. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) might not have wanted to dwell on the differences between Scotland and Wales and England, but we in Plaid Cymru and, certainly, our colleagues in the Scottish National party see the differences as highly significant.
We were all disappointed when the Government acted because, as we all know, free personal care was introduced in Scotland, but not in Wales and England. The matter of funding is particularly significant in my constituency and my part of Wales. In Gwynedd, we have a particularly high level of residential care for older people, and a relatively higher percentage of older people who may be subject to charging. We also face difficulties because much of the residential care stock is old and requires significant investment to bring it up to standard without compromising the standard of care provided to current and future residents.
Furthermore, levels of personal wealth in my constituency are low. Inherited capital from the sale of a parent's house has a particular significance for the local economy. That inherited capital is, of course, disappearing—I have had visits to my surgeries from constituents who are worried about that because they are passing on to many children shares of the small amounts of capital that they have accumulated.
My constituency also has a large number of care businesses, many of which are run by small, local operators. They are not large businesses or companies; they are often run by husband-and-wife teams. Those businesses are now facing greater uncertainty in their planning, and reference to that was made earlier.
In respect of the royal commission, a partial answer was given to the problem of funding in Wales and England. That partial answer has led to further problems. The system is unpopular—that goes without saying—and one might almost say that it is in disrepute. People who have saved all their lives see their savings reduced and lost to them and their children merely because they are in need through no fault of their own. That is a tax on need.
How does one distinguish—this is an old question—between social and medical care? I taught social care workers for many years in my previous career, and I certainly find it difficult to distinguish between those two types of need. Again, there is the well-rehearsed question: what is a social bath, and what is a medical bath? To ask another question: is putting on incontinence pads a medical matter, and putting on trousers over them a social one?
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. We have a problem with the microphones. If hon. Members move forward to the front row, everything will be okay. However, that does not guarantee that everyone who wishes to speak will be called. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his speech.
Hywel Williams: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. Being heard is much better than not being heard.
The questions that I was posing are old ones, and clearly absurd. However, they are not the result of professional absurdity. Such questions arise directly
198WH
from the Government's decision to differentiate between the medical and social elements. Deciding on what is a social need and a medical need takes time. Again, that is not the fault of the professionals involved. I understand that decisions have been held up by local panel meetings and constituents have approached me asking to hurry up the process of deciding who should be responsible. However, a system that is intrinsically complicated cannot be hurried up. That is the response that I have had from social services.
As I noted earlier, care providers in my constituency have postponed decisions on large capital investments because of the uncertainty about whether to build on the basis of meeting medical need or social need. Those are real decisions, and extra costs are involved. The effect is that care beds are being lost or denied, and there are delays in discharge from hospital, for example.
We in Wales want a system of care funding that is straightforward, effective and fair. From our point of view, the people of Wales, through our National Assembly, should take the decision on the nature of that system of funding. As Sutherland said, people who are in need should have that need met whatever their personal circumstances. That is the civilised response, and it is also Plaid Cymru's view.
11.29 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on initiating this important debate today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it. I shall discuss two main issues. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give way to us today, but I hope that she will take note of what we say and consider possible future changes.
I profoundly believe that long-term care for all elderly people should be free at the point of use, and that we should implement the royal commission's recommendations and move to the Scottish position now. Many Labour Members feel the same as I do, and we shall not rest until that change takes place. I recommend to the Minister the memorandum prepared by Unison the trade union for which I had the honour of working for many years, which has made an excellent case in much more detail than I can go into this morning.
National assistance limits on personal resources were first introduced more than 50 years ago. If the figure used then were indexed forward, it would come to more than £200,000, not the £18,500 that is now the limit below which local authorities pay. That would constitute not means testing but a wealth tax; indeed, I might suggest that if the Government want to raise extra revenue they consider a proportionate, progressive equitable wealth tax that would help pay for long-term care.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned the problem of inherited capital, which will have a significant effect on the housing market. Sustaining owner occupation now depends to a large extent on inherited capital—on parents handing on the equity in their houses to their children. If that is increasingly taken away as the population ages, it could create housing difficulties as well as long-term care difficulties, with which the Government will have to deal in the longer term.

199WH
The second issue that I shall discuss is local authority homes. My constituency contains three local authority care homes that are currently under threat of closure. The Government, no doubt for very good reasons, have decided to raise the standards required of care homes. Two of the care homes involved were purpose built, and I know that they are extremely good, because I have visited them. Indeed, in one of them my late mother-in-law lived for some time and was very happy, receiving excellent care from permanently employed, properly paid, trade union-organised local authority staff. I want those homes to remain open and in operation. However, if the new standards are imposed and they have to be modernised and upgraded without that being fully funded by central Government, the local authority will not be able to afford it, and will effectively be forced to close them and to put more of their long-term care residents into the private sector instead of in the public sector homes available at present.
We have already heard about problems with long-term care in private homes, and the fact that some homes are finding it difficult to make a profit. Whether profit is appropriate in the case of such a service is another issue, but they are finding it difficult to sustain those homes financially and are having a hard time. Property prices are rising, and some see the advantage of selling off, possibly for conversion to owner occupation, as that would be a more profitable use of their resources.
I ask the Minister seriously to consider supporting local authorities that may be forced to close their homes because they cannot afford to modernise them in line with the requirements of the new standards—or, alternatively, to reconsider the care standards. Some purpose-built homes that are still reasonably good—the homes in Luton are extremely good—do not quite match the required standards. We could build new homes to the required standards but, for the time being at least, keep the old homes, as they are, without pressing local authorities to modernise them—in effect, to rebuild them—simply because the rooms might be too small. If and when those standards are imposed on the private sector, the costs of meeting them would be too high, and many private homes would therefore have to close. The homes would be unprofitable, and they would be sold. Indeed, there is a desperate shortage of rented property in my constituency, and the private sector could do very well by selling off its homes or converting them into flats for owner occupation. That would lead to a crisis; a shortfall in care home provision would be created in my constituency.
I therefore make two pleas to the Minister: look again at free long-term care, and give a little support to local authorities that might be forced to close their homes. Although I am publicly opposing such closures, I also appreciate that my local authority faces a desperate financial problem.
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I ask those who are called to speak to be as brief as possible.
11.36 am
Dr. Andrew Murrison: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who represents a constituency that neighbours mine, is extremely lucky,
200WH
as Somerset has been marked out for special funding from the £300 million package that the Government announced on 9 October 2001. That announcement did not carry with it criteria for the award of additional funding, and as Wiltshire has done rather badly out of it, I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification on that matter.
Earlier this year, my Wiltshire colleagues highlighted the inadequate settlement for education funding in the county, and it appears that similar treatment is now being meted out to the other end of the spectrum—the elderly people of Wiltshire.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I share an interest in the Royal United Hospital, Bath, and I welcome the additional money that has been allocated to Gloucestershire, Somerset and Bath, in so far as it might ease bed blocking at the RUH.
Wiltshire has the longest waiting list for residential and nursing home placements in the south-west that are funded by local authorities, despite the fact that the county's health authority funds 50 places through transfer of funds to the county council, and also that a joint review conducted 12 months ago said that Wiltshire's social services were among the nation's best. I fear that additional funding for neighbouring counties and authorities will, paradoxically, have a bad effect on poorly resourced Wiltshire because neighbouring authorities will be allowed to buy up services from Wiltshire homes and Wiltshire's elderly will be adversely affected. I urge the Minister to re-examine the case for including Wiltshire in the list of 50 authorities earmarked for additional funding on 9 October, because the county's elderly deserve a better settlement than the one that has been offered.
Several hon. Members rose—
11.37 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: The competition among hon. Members to speak reflects the widespread concern about the matter under discussion.
The story that was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) reflected the experiences of all hon. Members. I wrote a letter to the Minister a couple of weeks ago describing the problems of local social services in relation to spending, such as spill-over in terms of cuts in provision, bed blocking, and upstreaming local hospitals. My letter crossed in the post with the Minister's offer of more funding, so I do not wish to pursue that point.
Instead, I want to highlight another aspect of the problem that has come to the surface as a result of a lead story that appeared last week in, I think, the Sunday Express. It referred to what it characterised as a scandal in a residential home in my constituency. The home is called Lynde House, and it is part of the Westminster Healthcare group. I want to refer to the case, as it serves to illustrate some of the broader problems that are being experienced in the private sector.
The institution, which is part of a large group, is in many ways at the top end of the market; the typical fee is about £660 per week, as it is very well appointed. It appears to be a luxurious home, and it is, no doubt, a very good one in many respects. However, I started to receive serious complaints several months ago, and I

201WH
have now received more than 20 well-documented cases. They were discussed, often in highly emotional terms, at a public meeting that was organised by a local parish priest. The complaints resolved themselves into two types. First, there were complaints about the treatment of physical conditions. For example, elderly people with incontinence problems were left for long periods without being changed and did not get a response when they rang the bell. The underlying problem was that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. There is a serious problem in the labour market, with shortages of nursing and other care staff. Staff are badly paid and poorly motivated. There is a high staff turnover and employees have little commitment. Within a context of highly deficient and unsatisfactory management, the elderly people in the home suffered.
Secondly, when people and their relatives complained and endeavoured to make the problems known, they met a rather unsympathetic management. In some cases, very old ladies were expelled or suspended from the home, or required to sign letters promising not to complain in future. I was confronted with the rather chilling phrase that these old ladies were "destabilising management". That illustrated the profoundly unsatisfactory culture that had developed, and it deserved to be publicised.
In terms of the broad lessons to be learned, I highlight two issues and would like to hear the Minister's response to them. First, although inspection will be improved under the new care standards system, the current system rests heavily on the work of health authorities and their inspection units. The case that I have mentioned was difficult to deal with because the health authority had inspected the home and given it a clean bill of health. I have wondered why, and I suspect that it might be because inspection is rather formal. It involves a lot of ticking of boxes and physical measures, but does not get to grips with the quality of care or intangible things such as problems with client-management relations, which in this case were not picked up in the inspection, despite being on the record. It is also possible that because the inspection units work with the local providers rather than exercising tough, independent assessment the relationship becomes too cosy.
Either explanation may be correct, but it is clear in this case that the inspection system failed. I have asked the chairman of the health authority, who is being very co-operative, to investigate the matter, but I think that the way forward is to have an independent overview. Someone independent of the provider and the health authority should be brought in to examine what is happening and to evaluate the complaints and the way in which they have been dealt with.
The second general point, which goes to the heart of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, is that such situations arise largely because of the problems of market supply and demand. There is a problem with contracting supply. Those who remain in the market, such as the home that I have described, are able to charge considerable fees. They can cut corners because people have few choices
202WH
and they can bring pressure to bear on complainants because plenty of other people are willing to come there. That is the cruel logic of supply and demand.
I do not wish to aggravate the problems in my area by creating such a stink that the home is obliged to close. We need it, as we need other residential homes, but I want improved quality, as I am sure do the relatives. That will come only when there is improved supply. I share the views that have been raised by many hon. Members that it is crucial to examine care standards, not to suffocate but to improve the supply of accommodation—whether that comes through the public or the private sector.
11.43 am
Paddy Tipping: The debate is important and timely, and concern has been expressed by many hon. Members in the Chamber this morning. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described long-term care in Somerset as being in crisis. I am not sure whether long-term care in Nottinghamshire is in crisis, but there are certainly real problems, especially in the nursing home sector. North Nottinghamshire health authority reports the loss of almost 150 beds and Nottingham health authority reports the loss of 150 beds this year. That is 300 beds lost from the stock, with two consequences. First, when a nursing home closes immediately, the care that is given to the frail people who are transferred to another home is not appropriate and leads to severely diminishing life chances. Secondly, the choice that is available to elderly people and their families diminishes as the stock reduces.
There are three pressures on the nursing home sector. The first is the general increase in costs due to improved standards; the second is the minimum wage, which I support; the third is the need for extra qualified nursing support in the nursing sector, which involves a demand issue—some nursing homes have not been able to recruit the necessary staff at the right price.
Those issues also relate to the residential sector. Many families face financial difficulties in respect of so-called third-party costs. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, local authorities increase their payments for residential care by roughly 2 per cent. a year. The real increase in cost has been far greater than that, and relatives have been asked to meet the gap by entering into contracts, the terms of which have varied. Put simply, many families are struggling severely to meet their share of the increase in costs.
I welcome wholeheartedly last week's announcement of £300 million—£100 million in this financial year and £200 million in the next. Will the Minister spell out how that allocation has been made, especially in this financial year? Having spent some time looking at the figures, I can see that cities such as Birmingham and Sheffield have done particularly well. Clearly, they have real needs. However, I have an impression—I put it no more strongly than that—that the top 50 worst performers are being rewarded, while those local authorities that have worked hard in the past, and have not talked of crisis, have not been adequately rewarded.
How will the £200 million for next year be allocated? It is a question of equity. It is important that elderly people across the country are treated with fairness, and

203WH
it cannot be right if local authorities that have not achieved are rewarded. Indeed, that runs against the bulk of Government policy.
The debate is primarily about residential and nursing care, but the real issue is domiciliary support. Good domiciliary support costs a great deal. The cost of providing meals, home helps, IT and aids and adaptations means that it can often be more expensive to keep a person in their home than in residential care.
In real terms, significant sums of money are going into public services—an increase of between 5 and 6 per cent. in the funding for the national health service and for education each and every year—but social services departments are badly stretched. They do not have that amount of growth; they have problems with their budgets. There is such a problem in Nottinghamshire, and I want assurances that there will be adequate funding so that the problem does not become a crisis.
11.49 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I entirely endorse the point about domiciliary care made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), but in the interests of brevity I shall not go over it again. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his comprehensive introduction to the debate, in which he said, "We all have an interest in this subject." That statement is abundantly true, and it lies behind the consensus that has been evident during the debate.
I declare a personal interest: my mother will be 100 years of age in a few weeks. She is, as one would expect, in long-term care. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the way in which she has been looked after in a private home, which has been fantastic.
I endorse the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), but it would be wrong not to put on record that the vast majority of people who care for the elderly, be they private owners of care homes or be they their staff who, as he pointed out, have a difficult job, are trying, in the most difficult circumstances, to look after our elderly in a responsible and skilled way. That is the kernel of the problem, to which I shall return later in the debate.
I want to endorse and reinforce some points that were made earlier. It is a demographic fact that longevity is part of the problem, and that is especially true of Cornwall. Not only do we have a wonderful climate, which is why my mother will soon be 100, but we have many people, some of whom will have retired from the constituencies represented here today to the most beautiful part of the UK. We therefore have a disproportionate number of elderly people who require long-term care in Cornwall. We also have many large properties in coastal and seaside resorts, which is something that applies to other parts of the country, and they have traditionally been seen as appropriate—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) will agree with this point—for conversion into care homes. That combination of demographic and physical factors has resulted in a concentration of homes that is becoming a problem. The problem is especially acute where local authorities find themselves at a considerable long term disadvantage, which was a point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood.
204WH
The 2 per cent. increase in funding, which nowhere near meets the cost, will, if we are not careful, be year on year. Those who pay privately for care cross-subsidise those who do not. Such people may feel that that is an unfortunate fact of life, but it is creating frustration and resentment, which we can well do without. Those who run private homes are desperately trying to make ends meet, but they are finding it difficult to meet that objection with a logical argument. Neither they nor social services departments have created that situation; it is the result of the Government's funding. However, I shall not rehearse all Cornwall's problems because they are similar to those that were mentioned earlier.
As far as I can see, there are no villains to the piece; they are all victims. Care home owners clearly have a difficult task and most are dedicated to the work that they do. Care homes are not seen by most of their owners as simply a profit-making commercial enterprise. They generally entail a personal commitment. Staff, to whom I have already referred, now find that people with less skill, dedication and commitment than themselves can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, stack shelves in a supermarket at a better rate of pay and with fewer difficulties in terms of conditions and responsibilities. Staff are having intolerable pressures put upon them although they are doing a difficult job. Training and career development are important, and it was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who has obviously been involved with those issues.
We must ensure that there are greater career opportunities for carers. We all know councillors for whom this problem has caused genuine and terrible dilemmas. Finally, and most importantly, there are the residents themselves. For all those people, it is critical that we try to remove the endemic, persistent and consistent uncertainties that have been there for so-many years. For everyone concerned, but in particular the vulnerable residents, I hope that we can ensure a degree of certainty during the next couple of years.
I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will look over the border to Scotland to see how our colleagues and her colleagues are working together to achieve a more equitable solution. However, we cannot wait too long.
11.54 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: We have had a good debate and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for enabling us to have it. We need to explore the issues that he and other hon. Members have raised and we must put some questions to the Minister.
The message coming from the contributions made today is that we have experienced an extraordinary loss of capacity in the care sector outside hospitals, and that is why we now have problems in hospitals. There has been a lack of understanding of the consequences of a number of policy initiatives over the past five years, if not for longer. On the one hand, there are serious staff shortages with two out of three social services departments reporting staff shortages and many care homes struggling to compete with the supermarket down the road because they cannot afford to pay their

205WH
staff as much. On the other hand, there is a physical shortage of capacity, particularly in the care home sector. My hon. Friend gave the figures on that.
The problems caused by the combination of those two factors have been exacerbated by the new standards that have been introduced. They are welcome but the cost consequences of complying with them have not been followed through. When care home managers examine the standards, they will realise that adjustments must be made to their properties. When they work out the cost of them and see that they will have to have fewer people in their homes with a lower fee income, they will be even less able to repay any loans that they receive to make the changes. Their bank managers would laugh them out of the room, so they will not even go to see their bank managers but will investigate the retail possibilities that might result from closing the home and realising a rental or other income. That is why, in some parts of the country, the issue is not to increase fees to retain capacity, but to encourage people back into the market.
For example, in Kent and Somerset many homes have gone—they have been boarded up and sold. We must recover capacity in those areas or we shall be faced with the prospect of social services departments recruiting overseas, with the prospect of elderly people being exported overseas to be cared for. Increasingly, that is the prospect in Kent and other parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) rightly referred to the concern about the result of those pressures on care for individuals. There is strong evidence of a powerful correlation between low levels of training and abuse in homes. There is much research evidence of that in the United States and equivalent evidence in this country. We must recognise that part of the problem is the insufficient training of staff who are not as skilled as they should be in treating people with dementia. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the difficulties of dealing with people with dementia and to the need to provide appropriate care.
That brings me to the roll-out of the "free nursing care" that started on 1 October and that will have the unwelcome consequences that the Government have not foreseen in setting their objectives for tackling bed blocking. Not only was that policy introduced at breakneck speed—the final guidance was issued on 25 September, which left staff in the NHS three working days in which to implement the final version of the guidance—but not all the documentation was available at that stage.
There is concern that the guidance will create perverse incentives. Those with the highest needs will pay less because the cost of their nursing care will, appropriately, be picked up, while those with the lowest needs will pay most. That may lead places with poor practices that drive up dependency being rewarded because they may receive extra money for nursing care because they do not provide the social and other activities that promote independence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome referred to dementia care. People with dementia do not simply turn up in nursing homes, but the Government's work book for rolling out free nursing
206WH
care shows that people with dementia could be banded at the high-need level and receive free nursing care worth £110 a week. What will happen if, as surveys have shown, people with an equivalent level of need are in residential care homes? Will they be made to up sticks and move to a nursing home with all the consequences involved, or will the rules be flexible enough to provide free nursing care for people in residential care homes?
Will the bands introduced for free nursing care be uprated annually? If not—we have already heard that self-funders' fees increase by 5 per cent. a year on average—the gap will start to widen again. A greater proportion of care, as well as accommodation costs, will have to be paid for. Will there be an annual uprating, and will it take into account regional variations such as weighting allowances and the cost of regulation? The fact that the regulatory system will continue to move forward and change must also be reflected.
I have a question relating to the roll-out of free nursing care. What is the appeals mechanism? At the moment, it is very unclear what it will consist of, and it would help if the Minister could spell out how people will gain access to it and whether support from independent advocates will see them through the process. Often, we are talking about people who, because of their condition, are the frailest and least able. They need support to be able to get what they are entitled to.
On capacity and free nursing care, a care home owner who runs a small nursing unit and has a number of people banded in the medium care band will need to have a registered nurse in the home all the time. That will cost a substantial extra sum. To cover the cost of one nurse, 20 to 25 residents will need to be in that band and receiving moneys from the NHS. If such an owner has fewer residents in the medium band, how on earth will he be able to pay for his obligation to provide a registered nurse all the time? The Minister needs to clarify how we are to ensure that smaller nursing homes, which will be vital in dealing with bed-blocking issues this winter and beyond, are not suddenly put out of business by an initiative that is well intentioned but perhaps not fully thought through.
The capacity issue brings me to the final set of questions. Last week's announcement of an extra £200 million in a full year is very welcome, but we need to be clear where the funds are coming from. Is the pot of money new, or is it to be taken from the £900 million for intermediate care that has been talked about on numerous occasions? It would be nice to know whether the funds were new or had been taken from contingency reserves or somewhere else.
What is the target in respect of bed blocking? Is it to make available 1,000 beds by the end of the winter, or 1,000 beds a day to the end of winter? The target is unclear and it needs to become a lot clearer, so that it is not missed by the local authorities that are in the frame.
That brings me to the 50 local authorities that have benefited from the special grant that will come their way. It is not merely a question of rewarding the local authorities that are the poorest performers, because much of the money is being targeted on health authorities with trusts that are not delivering. The announcement has triggered a response from care home owners across the country. They are saying, "Isn't it

207WH
time that our fees increased—not next year, but now?" They are giving notice to their local authorities that they want their fees to go up now, and that if they do not, they will refuse to continue to take state-funded places. Indeed, that is already happening in York, and is causing great concern as a result.
Let us consider the case of an authority that does not receive the extra cash but neighbours one of the 50 authorities that benefit from it. That authority will see its neighbour jacking up the rates that it is prepared to pay, but it will be unable to pay the same rate. It will no longer be able to afford to place people in the homes in which it used to place them. Suddenly, it will be a bed-blocking local authority. However because the local authority that receives the money this year will have an on-going commitment to fund the person that it placed in the nursing home, it will ask the Government for the full amount next year. So although the £200 million is welcome, it will be fully committed to this year's expenditures. Any other local authority that wants to do well in future will need extra resources to deal with its capacity problems.
If we do not have the capacity to provide long-term care in Kent, Somerset and the other places that hon. Members have mentioned, the year-round gridlock in our system will continue to get worse. Private investors will not come back into the sector to reopen homes and establish new care facilities. Will the Minister guarantee that long-term investment will be made, and not just year by year by the tap being turned on and off? Local authorities and the private sector need to know that for three, four or five years funding will be provided so that they can invest in guaranteed delivery.
12.4 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the debate. Every speaker has referred to long-term care as being a problem or as being in crisis. Both those propositions are true, partly because of changes in the way in which society and individuals want to provide care for elderly members of their family.
Outdated legislation provides the framework for a policy that has moved on dramatically. I refer, of course, to the National Assistance Act 1948, which laid down the definition of health and social care at a time when there was no emphasis on providing domiciliary care. There were long-stay hospitals where the elderly, with appalling quality of life, were left to languish until they died. That was a national disgrace. Fortunately, in the past 50 years, society has become far more civilised and caring in its provision for elderly people. Community care has developed, which I strongly support, and there is an emphasis, when it is feasible, on domiciliary care that allows the elderly to remain in their own home.
We have also seen the development in private residential homes of a home from home for those elderly who are so frail that they cannot live in their own home. That has created significant problems, partly because, following the 1948 Act, people have been subject to means testing. We may have missed an opportunity to address the funding of residential care when the Government first set up the royal commission on long term care. For many years there has been resentment that people who have been thrifty and put aside money for their old age, and who can no longer live at home and
208WH
must go into residential care, must be financially responsible for their own care until their assets are reduced to £18,500. Yet, on the other side of the coin, the state pays for care for people who have not been thrifty and made provision for their retirement. In fairness, I should point out that people who have failed to make provision for their retirement have not always spent the money as they went along. It is not always that they have not been thrifty; there are people who were unable to put money aside due to economic or physical circumstances. However, a group of people exists who were not thrifty when they could have been, which causes resentment.
What can one do to ensure that the system works? The policies on which the Conservative party fought the last election offer an alternative positive step forward. First, we propose a voluntary insurance scheme, which will be part of the ethos of the responsibility of the individual. If that ethos were established at the start of people's working lives, the premiums that people had to pay would be so negligible that they would not mind paying the money. It would be a voluntary system whereby they could bypass the means test. When they reached retirement age and needed residential care, they would be able to draw on the insurance policy and protect their assets, which they could then pass on to their children or grandchildren if they wished.
The other alternative is a scheme put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to create a long-term care fund, into which individuals could put a lump sum. It is estimated that the lump sum, at current prices, would be about £25,000 to £30,000. If people did not need those funds for long-term care—75 per cent. of people in this country do not—the asset could be passed on to their children or grandchildren for their long-term care. Both proposals are worthy of consideration because it is unacceptable that in the lifetime of this Government 160,000 homes have had to be sold by individuals or families to pay for residential care.
I mention briefly the problems of free nursing care, which have been mentioned by many hon. Members. Many people feel betrayed by the Prime Minister's announcement, which was made, typically, before a general election, that from 1 October this year nursing care would be free. In the Committee that considered the Health and Social Care Bill, the official Opposition had an agreement with the Government that we would accept the policy of not changing the rules and regulations on residential care because we supported the provision of free nursing care. We believed that that was the quid pro quo.
We now feel betrayed, as do many organisations and individuals, because we took what the Prime Minister and the Government said at face value. We believed that the Government were sincere about providing free nursing care for all from 1 October. What a sham that has become. It is now apparent that nursing care is not free for all. There is the banding system, and the definition of nursing in small print excludes significant sections of the community that most normal and reasonable individuals would consider to require nursing. For example, people who suffer from dementia and Alzheimer's disease will almost certainly not receive free nursing care because the Government have

209WH
categorised their care as personal care. That is a disgrace and a betrayal, and the Government should look again and provide what they promised.
I also draw attention to the problems of the residential home sector. Beds are withdrawn and closed down for a variety of reasons. As many hon. Members have said, there are problems with funding and self-funders pay a 5 per cent. increase in fees each year, whereas local authorities pay less. Local authorities effectively use their position in the market to force contracts on residential care home owners. That is partially because of the severe strain on the social services budget. A number of homes have been put out of business because they cannot afford to continue. Similarly, legislation on the standards of care expected of homes causes a severe problem for existing homes—particularly small homes—and will have an impact on those thinking of building purpose-built homes. I question some of the small print on the size of rooms and other standards that are being demanded, and I urge the Minister to examine that matter. In the light of our experience and of what is expected to happen, will the Government consider whether more common sense and flexibility can be introduced into the system?
Mid-Essex, where my constituency is located, offers a classic example of the kind of situation that must be avoided. The number of beds in the area is shrinking; homes in Chelmsford and the surrounding area are regularly closing down. Ten years ago, there were enough beds to meet the need for residential care, but that is no longer the case. As a result, elderly family members are having to move away from the area to find a home. That causes them grave distress, because they may have spent their entire life in the Chelmsford area, and they may not want to travel 30 or 40 miles to an unfamiliar area. It also puts a strain on relatives, as they have to travel further to visit. In short, it is an unsatisfactory situation that must be addressed.
I will now conclude as time is running out, but I urge the Minister to listen carefully to all the points that have been made across the political divide during this important debate, and to be prepared to think again, rather than simply to tell hon. Members that everything is fine, that the Government are wonderful, and that the rest of us have got it wrong.
12.16 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath); the debate has been useful and interesting, and I agree with him that it deals with an important issue. We live in a society in which increasing numbers of people live to an advanced age. One in five of us is over 60. During the next 25 years the number of over-80s will increase by 25 per cent., and the number of over-90s will double. Those figures are to be celebrated; we should take pride in them. I want to take this opportunity to wish a happy birthday in the coming weeks to the mother of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Older people are not a burden on society, and they must not be characterised as such; they are a resource of wisdom and experience.
210WH
However, our ageing society creates a new set of challenges so we must modernise the present system of care. I agree with hon. Members that that system can be confusing, unfair and unresponsive to individual needs. The Government have set out to address the matter. As a result of the changes announced last year in the NHS plan, older people can now have greater confidence in the ability of health and social services departments to deliver the services that they want in the quantities that are required and of the right quality.
Several hon. Members have raised concerns about the capacity of the care home sector. I point out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that, although the Government do not underestimate the importance of that matter, the figure of 50,000 in relation to the loss of beds is incorrect. It is also necessary to bear it in mind that although some beds have been closed, others have been created, because some homes have expanded their provision. In 2000, there was a net loss of around 7,700 independent sector places, according to a recent report published by Laing and Buisson, is an expert in that area. It is, however, also interesting that Laing and Buisson reported that
"the continued failure of any really major wave of closures to materialise by the end of 2000 bears witness to the survival power of small businesses in this sector."
That is encouraging, although, as I will explain, the Government are not complacent about the situation in respect of care home capacity.
The reduction in capacity can, as some hon. Members have pointed out, be consistent with a policy of promoting independence. Everyone—including older people—wants to keep people out of institutional care if that is possible, and I note encouraging figures that show that 5 per cent. more households received intensive home care packages in 2000 than in 1999. In Somerset, recent indicators show that more older people have been helped to continue to live at home. However, we must ensure that such a change is planned so that alternative services are available. That is why the Government have already provided significant additional resources for social services and why the further cash injection of £300 million was made for this year and next year, details of which I shall explain later.
As part of the implementation of the NHS plan, local authorities and health authorities are now required to work with local independent sector providers to determine nursing and residential bed requirements and to agree a strategy to remedy shortfalls. The Government are undertaking a study of the supply of residential and nursing homes in England and are examining future requirements, profitability and closures. My predecessor brought together a strategic commissioning group that has examined improvements in commissioning. We need to maintain capacity and encourage diversification and innovation, so that we can provide options for adults who need care and support.
To that end, in line with the £300 million investment, we recently published an agreement with local government, the NHS and independent sector providers of health and social care, and housing services. That agreement, "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care", sets out principles and practices that can be followed at a local level. Acrimonious disputes between councils, which are commissioning and paying for services, and independent providers, particularly of

211WH
residential and nursing homes as well as domiciliary services, are not good. The people who suffer are local people who need those services. They are at the centre of our worries today, which is why I can understand the distress caused by care home closures. Better emphasis needs to be placed on commissioning at a local level. We must take a fresh look at how national and local government, the NHS and independent sector care providers can work and plan together to the advantage of the service user. Real collaboration will result in standards rising and better outcomes for services. The agreement that we published last week is intended to help that process.
Hon. Members referred to national minimum care standards. The development of those standards is part of our overall reform to modernise the regulatory system for social services and nursing homes. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) emphasised the need for a coherent and regulatory inspection system. While recognising the need for standards, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) expressed worry about how such standards would be implemented.
The national minimum standards for care homes for older people were published in March. They will promote better quality care and help to stop abuse by grounding practice in the principles of dignity, choice, privacy and respect, which we all agree are important. They will guarantee residents access to an effective complaints procedure and ensure that they are cared for by trustworthy and reliable staff who are properly trained for a difficult and sensitive job. Those standards were consulted on extensively. We listened to the concerns of providers and produced sensible standards that will give providers a reasonable time to adapt and achieve the support of national organisations that represent consumers and providers.
We made several specific changes to the proposed standards in response to the concerns that were raised. I am confident that such decisions will ensure that necessary improvements in the quality of care homes will be achieved smoothly and that stability and sufficient capacity are maintained.
However, it is also important to communicate effectively the reality of what the standards will mean for care homes. Some slightly exaggerated claims have been made in some areas. I take responsibility for ensuring that we communicate with care home owners because, in introducing the standards, we need to maintain high quality and ensure that the good care homes to which hon. Members referred maintain their it capacity through the change.
It will be for the National Care Standards Commission to decide in the particular circumstances of each home whether that home conforms to the standards necessary to meet the assessed needs of its residents. The focus of that commission will be to work with providers to help them meet national standards. That is important. Through the process we need to maintain capacity and the good work done in our care homes.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister give way?
Jacqui Smith: No, because I am short of time.
Hon. Members referred to last week's announcement on extra funding for bed blocking. We recognise that more money is needed in the system to make a reality of the right quality of care for older people at the right time and in the right place. That is why the extra £300 million announced last week, which is in addition to the £900 million identified for intermediate care, is aimed at stabilising the care home market, which may mean that local authorities need to reconsider the fees that they offer in partnership with their independent and voluntary sector partners. We aim to attack the bed-blocking problem and ensure that developments take place in the context of improving services for older people, as we set out in the national service framework for older people.
We are focusing £45 million of this year's £100 million on the 50 councils that need greater help. Another £45 million will be distributed to the other 100 councils on the basis of the standard spending assessment, and £10 million will support other initiatives to support and promote change for the good of the users of the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) expressed anxiety about our decision to target that money. The issue is not fair shares for councils but tackling areas in which users of the service are disproportionately affected by the problems. That is why we focused on areas in which people are suffering the most, and we were right to do that. The conditions surrounding the money that we are allocating to the 50 councils that are receiving the extra help are tight. A target will be agreed for reducing delayed discharges from hospital, and councils will need to take clear steps to improve their partnership working and strategic planning.
As for the £200 million for next year, we have already said that no local authority will receive less than it received this year, but for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood gave, we need to keep under review how to promote best practice in the system and ensure that we make the changes that our constituents want.
On 1 October, we delivered on our commitment in the NHS plan to provide free nursing care for all, with £100 million worth of investment this year. From that date, no one need pay for the care of a registered nurse in a nursing home—care that in other settings is already provided free by the NHS. For people who were already receiving nursing care in other residential care settings, it is the continuing responsibility of the NHS to ensure, as before, that that NHS provision is free. We have removed an anomaly by ensuring that care provided by a registered nurse in a nursing home is free, and we are moving away from a means-tested system of nursing care to one that is based on assessed need. Clinical need, rather than income, is the determining factor in deciding the band of nursing care in which people are placed. That will be introduced alongside other measures designed to make the system fairer—a 12-week property disregard, and money for local authorities to introduce a deferred payment scheme.

213WH
In response to points made about Scotland, we should have this debate in the light of reality. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) suggested that changes had already been made in Scotland; they have not. We have delivered on our commitment to introduce free nursing care in England. Changes are still under discussion in Scotland. It is right in a devolved system—
Mr. William O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. I now call the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg).

Energy Strategy (Scotland)
12.30 pm
Miss Anne Begg: I am delighted to be here to discuss the Government's energy strategy review in Scotland, and pleased that I have secured an Adjournment debate on such an important subject.
The subject is huge and could easily fill an hour and a half of debate, but we have only half an hour. It is probably too big for me to do it justice in that time, so I will begin by saying what I will not be talking about, because the energy strategy review has many aspects and there will not be time to cover them all. I do not want anybody to leave the debate thinking that I am not aware of all the issues. For instance, I will not speak about the future role of nuclear power in Scotland, although that is an important issue. Nuclear power stations will soon be nearing the end of their cycle, and decisions will have to be made about what will replace them and whether new stations will be built. That subject would be enough for an Adjournment debate, and may be picked up by another hon. Member. I will not be saying a great deal about electricity generation, transmission or supply, either—the mechanics of how electricity gets into our homes. That, too, is a big issue and is important in any strategy review. Nor will I talk about the future of coal, or about what will happen to the coal communities that are still struggling with difficulties created by the downturn in that industry.
In such a short debate I want to focus my attention, and as I am an Aberdeen MP it will come as no surprise that I will concentrate predominantly on the oil and gas industry, and on the role of Aberdeen. The oil and gas industry will be crucial not only in the energy strategy for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but for Aberdeen's economy, which is vibrant thanks to the prosperity created by the industry. It is vital to how the future of Aberdeen develops. Any energy strategy must take into account not only the short-term but the long-term needs of the industry. Aberdeen has an important part to play in the long-term future of energy needs, which will be predominantly concerned with sustainable and renewable energy. My contribution will therefore be made in two parts, examining first the role of oil and gas now and in the near future, and then Aberdeen's role in future energy needs through renewables.
First I will deal with oil and gas. My advice to the Government is: do not write them off. Much has been written in the newspapers recently about the idea that that industry is on a downturn and nearing the end of its life. I remember when I first went to Aberdeen to begin university in the early 1970s and the oil industry had just arrived. At that time the lifespan of the industry was declared to be 10 years and at the most 15—or if we were really lucky it might last for 20 years. We were told to make the best of it, because prosperity would not last. Some 30 years down the line the oil and gas are still flowing. As many reserves on the UK continental shelf in the North sea are known about now as in the mid to late 1970s. There is as much oil for recovery there as there was in the original 1970s projections, even without taking into account the exciting developments west of Shetland.

215WH
An exhibition is held biannually in Aberdeen, and the mood at the recent 2001 Offshore Europe exhibition was incredibly upbeat and positive. The elaborateness of the displays showed that the industry was in good heart, and some operators and contractors made spectacular presentations. That is a good barometer indicating that the operators and contractors in the oil industry feel that there is a future in the North sea.
The oil industry is still a major employer in the Scottish economy. Various figures are bandied about concerning the numbers employed. The submission from the Scotland Office to the energy review mentions 100,000 jobs directly or indirectly related to the industry. Those employed directly in the oil and gas industry, however, total 41,000 this year. That is down from the figure for those working in the industry in 1996, which was 46,000. According to the oil and gas prospectus—the 2001 update produced jointly by Aberdeen city council and Aberdeenshire council—total employment in the oil and gas industry is projected to drop to 37,000 in 2011 and to 32,000 in 2016. Fewer people will be working in the industry, but I contend that 32,000 jobs still form a sizeable part of any economy.
The interesting development, however, is in the numbers working offshore. That figure is due to drop even more severely than total employment. This year, about 18,000 people work offshore on the UK continental shelf—down from 21,200 in 1996—and by 2016 the figure is projected to drop to 12,000. Why is the drop in the number of people working offshore worse than that in the oil and gas industry as a whole? It is partly caused by new technologies. As those come in, and as fields mature, fewer people are needed to work on the inhospitable terrain of the North sea oil platforms. In fine weather, working on a platform is very pleasant, but in less fine weather it is a hard job. However, modern platforms are quite luxurious and a lot better than the original ones. I have visited the Miller platform, for which I thank BP. It was an experience like no other in my life. If anyone here has never been offshore, I would advise them to try it.
The number of fields in production is increasing. There were 87 in 1996, and the projection for 2016 is 115. Again, that is all to do with new developments and new technology. There have been improvements in oil recovery, in the North sea in particular. New technology is such that fields that were previously difficult to operate are now in development. We knew that oil and gas were there, but could not get them out until now. The rise in oil prices has made it possible to recover some fields that were in mothballs—if I may use that term. I am wary of mentioning particular operations in case I miss some out, but I was recently at the interesting inauguration of the Franklyn Elgin field by TotalFinaElf. That was a difficult gas field to develop because of the heat and pressure that the gas was under.
When I did my Industry and Parliament Trust with Chevron in 1998, the price of oil was as low as $10 or $12 a barrel. Decisions had to be made about a difficult field, the Clare field, which was a joint venture between Chevron and several other operators, predominant among which was BP. I sat in on the meeting at which they decided not to proceed with that development. It was a sad day because years of work had gone into the project, but the oil price meant that it was unsustainable
216WH
at the time. I am glad to say that, because of the higher price of oil, the Clare field is now going ahead. Those are just two examples, and they are not the only ones, of how difficult marginal fields can now be exploited.
We now have better recovery of oil and gas. Where fields have been decommissioned or are nearing decommissioning, operators such as Talisman have come in and bought up some of the licences. Such operators are now recovering oil and gas—especially oil—from areas that were thought to be nearing the end of their lifespan. The lifespan of many fields has been extended.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a prospect of the industry's provision of jobs in constituencies such as mine having a particularly long tail if we can get into the decommissioning market? If we can bring installations back on shore and decommission them in an environmentally friendly way, that will continue to provide employment. Is it not time that the Scotland Office or the Department of Trade and Industry gave some encouragement to ensure that we are in that market, which should not go to Scandinavian countries alone?
Miss Begg: I did not intend to talk about decommissioning, because I want to be optimistic. Many fields that were set for decommissioning have not been decommissioned. Indeed, some small operators that have not yet extracted any oil out of the ground are currently looking to buy up licences that have already been classed as redundant. The oil industry has a long-term future. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there will be an issue about who gets the decommissioning work, which we must ensure is done in an environmentally friendly way.
It is important that businesses, operators and contractors in both Aberdeen and the rest of the north-east are part of the oil industry's future. We are already seeing much of the expertise that has been developed in the North sea being exported abroad. Many Aberdeen companies are already operating in a global market. That is the short-term future of the oil industry. However, if Aberdeen is to continue to sustain its economy, it must not only look beyond the oil industry, but consider how it can use its expertise in new energy technologies. There are new imperatives affecting the energy industry, such as environmental pressure, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Environmental pressures will ensure that we deliver energy in a sustainable way that does not ruin our environment, but it is also important that we have cheap energy. If the oil price continues to rise we may reach a stage where it becomes unsustainable as a fuel because it is both expensive and environmentally unacceptable.
Aberdeen needs to be ready. The Government need to be aware of Aberdeen's expertise, and Aberdeen's companies and businesses operating in the energy market need to prepare for developments. It is important that we start to address these issues now so that we do not miss the boat. There are two reasons why we must consider environmental imperatives. First, we need to make oil and gas cleaner fuels so that they will continue to be used in the future—something that we are beginning to see with the production of liquefied

217WH
petroleum gas. I am very interested in liquid gas, which a company in my constituency, PCG, is developing with the government of Western Australia. Gas is turned into a liquid that can be used in diesel engines, which will be a cleaner fuel.
However, the aim is not only to make oil and gas cleaner fuels, but to develop renewable energies. Scotland is well placed to investigate the development of renewable energy sources. We have already led the world in the development of hydro-electricity, which has provided more than 10 per cent. of Scotland's energy needs over the past few decades, and our weather and geography lend themselves very well to the development of wave and wind power. I put in a plea on behalf of the technologies that are needed for offshore wind energy, many of which have already been used to develop the offshore oil industry.
I am not saying that Aberdeen should have offshore wind farms along its coast—it is not suitable, because much shallower water is required; nor that wave power is necessarily right on the east coast—it is more likely to be developed on the west coast or in the Moray firth. The role that I envisage for Aberdeen is that of a centre of excellence, knowledge and expertise. We have two universities—the university of Aberdeen and Robert Gordon university—which are already doing exciting development work on all aspects of energy. We have companies that are beginning to look to future development: major operators such as Shell, which is working on offshore wind, and BP, which is working on solar energy. I want that development to happen in Aberdeen, and to ensure that it is not exported abroad. I know that the Danes are far ahead of us in developing offshore wind energy. That is why my plea is for us to get involved now, so that as the oil industry moves onward and outward, and perhaps becomes less sustainable, the expertise in Aberdeen can be put to good use in other areas of energy production.
Mr. Russell Brown: Far be it from me to disagree with my hon. Friend and to say that Aberdeen should not be a centre of excellence. I fully support the whole principle of developing renewables; anyone who does not is surely somewhat foolhardy. However, does she not think that while the gas and oil industries have been developing over the past 20 or 30 years, we may have missed the boat in terms of research and development into renewables, and that we should have been concentrating more time and effort on that?
Miss Begg: I would love to be able to rewrite history. Perhaps my hon. Friend has a point and we should have been thinking about that sooner, but it is not too late—although it may be soon—provided that we get on the bus now. We should remember that during the industrial revolution Britain appeared to be way ahead of all the other European countries, but Germany introduced the newer technologies while Britain was using the older technologies, and stole a march on us. That may be the case with some renewables—certainly, research has gone down several blind alleys in developing wind and wave power.
Now is the right time to get into renewables and to ensure that the expertise that has been developed over the years in Aberdeen is used. Those brains should be
218WH
used to look into solutions for renewables. For example, in the development of wind power, it is important to get windmills right in terms of gearing and size, and in using new material that makes them light but strong enough not to break in winds of varying strengths. That is a difficult relationship to get right, and there is work to be done on it. I do not want to suggest that there are just one two areas of possibility; things will be happening in Aberdeen and elsewhere that I have not heard about and cannot dream of, but which are none the less very important.
My message to the Government on the energy strategy is that the future of Aberdeen and the north-east could be bright. To the doom and gloom merchants who say that it will all end in tears and the oil will soon run out, my answer is no, it still has some time to go—and even when it does run out we will be well poised to create a sustainable economy through diversification into other energy sectors.
I want Aberdeen to change from the oil capital of Europe into the energy capital of Europe. With Government support, the help of the various operators and the expertise that we have in Aberdeen, I am sure that we can achieve that.
12.50 pm
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on securing a debate on a very important topic. I agree that it deserves more than half an hour, and I hope that we will find other opportunities to debate it.
I visited Aberdeen during the general election campaign, and I enjoyed my visit. I said then that my hon. Friend is one of the best constituency Members in the House of Commons. Fortunately, the electorate of Aberdeen, South recognised that, and she has demonstrated it again today. The way to represent one's constituents is to secure a debate and argue one's case forcefully, as my hon. Friend did, rather than tabling 250 questions for written answer. Such round robins, costing £30,000, are a waste of public money. One such question asked how many photographers the Scotland Office has spent money on, and the cost in real terms since 1995. That is the kind of rubbish that we get from the immature representatives of the Scottish National party. I wish that they would take a leaf out of the book of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, who is a really good representative of her constituents.
As my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom Government remain responsible for the entire area of reserved issues, of which energy is one. Although energy is reserved to this Parliament, we all recognise that it impinges on a number of devolved responsibilities, not least the energy sector's significance in relation to jobs, as my hon. Friend said. As we pointed out in our submission to the review, there are 100,000 oil-related jobs in Scotland, and three of Scotland's top 10 companies are electricity generators and suppliers. That shows the importance of the sector in Scotland. Although energy policy is reserved, environmental issues are devolved, as are the promotion of renewable energy, energy efficiency, consents for new power stations, overhead lines and gas pipelines. That is why we in the Scotland Office have been working very closely with our colleagues in the Scottish Executive—officials and Ministers—on the entire energy review.

219WH
The energy review is an important part of the Government's energy strategy. Some journalists have said that we are conducting the review in secret. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, all the submissions and minutes of meetings held so far are published on the web. We cannot be more open than that. Everyone can read about exactly what we are doing and the way we are doing it. We have had more than 400 substantive submissions and a couple of hundred insubstantial ones, including one from the SNP that did not say anything new. I had better not go on, as I might be accused of being a "Nat-basher"—[Interruption.] Ah, it worked.
Mr. Michael Weir: Speaking as one of the alleged immature representatives, I ask the Minister to deal with the issue and explain the Government's thoughts, particularly on renewable energy, and the way forward. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South gave a very good speech on the oil industry, which I am interested in as it affects my constituency too. However, we must look beyond that to renewables. What are the Government's proposals for renewable energy? Do they intend to go down the nuclear road, as has recently been suggested?
Mr. Foulkes: I am happy to reply to that—a reply that will cost absolutely nothing. I share the vision that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South set out, in which we build on the oil and gas industry. Aberdeen is recognised as the oil capital of Europe. In the light of the expertise, technology and skills of those in and around Aberdeen, including Robert Gordon and Aberdeen universities, we can see the potential that my hon. Friend describes for Aberdeen to become the energy capital of Europe, including renewables.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South whether we had missed the renewables bus. That was the case until just over four years ago, but we saw the bus and got on it quickly. Matters have moved dramatically since then.
Renewables are vital and the Scottish oil and gas industry has much to be proud of. Aberdeen and Scotland as a whole have concentrated on people's skills and made a major contribution to the British economy. That is why PILOT was set up—it was formerly the oil and gas industry taskforce—of which I am a member, as well as being a member of the energy review. The vision of that taskforce is the United Kingdom oil and gas industry and Government working in partnership to deliver quicker, smarter and sustainable energy solutions for the new century. A number of taskforces have been set up within PILOT to help to achieve that vision. One is the oil and gas industry fabrication support group, which has identified significant opportunities for new businesses through diversification, one being energy from renewable sources. The skills of the oil and gas industry are being used to move into renewables, particularly onshore wind. I have seen Scottish Power's wonderful new development at New Cumnock in my constituency. The
220WH
factory at Campbeltown will build the wind generators to which my hon. Friend referred and provide much-needed jobs. The development includes onshore wind, offshore wind and tidal stream turbines. I made a fascinating visit to Islay and saw one of the pilot schemes for wave generation, which provides the opportunity for large-scale development. Scotland is reported to contain 23 per cent. of the wind energy of Europe and it feels like it from time to time, especially in Orkney and Shetland which I visited recently.
Mr. Carmichael: As the Member representing Orkney, may I invite the Minister to return to Stromness in the near future to see for himself the excellent work that is being done at the marine energy test centre, which has been established there as a result of Scottish Executive and Highlands and Islands Enterprise initiatives?
Mr. Foulkes: Of course, I shall take up that offer. I welcome the chance to visit Orkney and Shetland, which are my only overseas visits since I changed my job.
Scotland, with its large natural assets, is favourably placed to make faster progress on renewables. We are already seeing progress, the obvious example being AMEC Border Wind. AMEC is one of the first oil and gas contractors to diversify into wind energy in response to the Government's target on renewables. The renewables obligation has made a substantial difference to the development of renewables with £800 million going to the renewables industry through the renewables obligation. That is a substantial contribution.
Another example is Agip (UK), which provides backing for Wavegen, whose generator I saw in Islay. We are keen to encourage further development along those lines. However, we face a number of challenges in the energy review. I do not have time to go into them all today, but I would welcome an opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail. We must focus on the tensions between energy policy and environmental objectives, which is a classic dilemma.
The future role of nuclear energy must be discussed because 45 per cent. of electricity in Scotland comes from nuclear generation. The two nuclear power stations have a finite life and we must work out how they will be replaced. We must all face up to that, including the nationalists, or the lights will go out all over Scotland and the United Kingdom and our constituents would not thank us for that. We need to achieve security and diversity of energy supply. We need to look at the future of the oil and gas sector, and the ways in which we can encourage the opening up of a marginal field. We need to look at the significance of transport as an energy consumer, and the need to tackle fuel poverty. That is something that, in terms of our poverty eradication agenda, we must not forget.
That is the purpose of the energy review. A meeting will take place tomorrow, which I shall attend, and we aim to report by the end of the year. I hope that all hon. Members present will find another opportunity to debate this matter, which is vital to Scotland and to Britain.

Lauren Wright
1 pm
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): I now call the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). May I say how sorry hon. Members are to see that her leg is in plaster. We hope that it is not too serious, and that she soon recovers her former health.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien, for your kind good wishes. All I can say is that just walking along and breaking one's leg is no fun at all. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) says, it would have been better with a gin and tonic.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of Lauren Wright in this Chamber. In more than 30 years of experience in health, education and social services I have known no more appalling case than hers. This tragic child was let down by all those who should have cared for her. Despite warnings from people in the community, Lauren died by slow degrees, in full view of the agencies responsible for her care. We deserve to be told why, and that is why I am calling for a full public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding her death. I am supported today by the hon. Members for Norwich, North and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). The Minister will therefore readily understand that this is an all-party approach. I am also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who would have been here but has something wrong with his mouth—we people from Norfolk have some unfortunate afflictions at the moment, one way and another—and by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham).
I shall give a brief and rapid outline of the facts. Lauren Wright was born on 16 July 1993; she died from a blow to the abdomen, with extreme bruising all over her body, on 6 May 2000, two days before the date of the case conference finally organised by Norfolk social services to discuss her plight. From her birth, she was known to Hertfordshire social services, and she became known to Norfolk social services from 31 July 1997. Her name was removed from the Hertfordshire child protection register in August 1998, after a residence order was granted to her paternal grandmother in Norfolk. In January 1999, Lauren began school at the William Marshall primary school in Welney. During 1999, her care was transferred to her father, Craig Wright, who married Tracey Wright in the summer of that year. Lauren then moved to live with her father and stepmother, next door to her paternal grandmother. Tracey Wright was employed as a supervisory assistant at the William Marshall primary school from April 1999. Her responsibilities included supervision of children's play at lunchtime.
Towards the end of 1999 there were reports of bruising to Lauren. On 30 November 1999 she was seen by a consultant community paediatrician. Further anonymous allegations from the community of neglect and emotional abuse of Lauren by her stepmother were made during the early part of 2000. Claims from the family that Lauren was being bullied at school resulted in her teachers being asked by social workers to monitor the situation. She was seen by a general practitioner at
222WH
Upwell on 14 March 2000, and on 15 March by a paediatrician at the King's Lynn hospital. Both observed numerous bruises of differing ages on her body. The GP suspected abuse, and the paediatrician put them down to bullying at school. Police following up the case were told that the medical evidence was inconclusive.
Hertfordshire social workers visited Lauren at home on 25 April, and the next day they alerted Norfolk social services to their concerns about Lauren's appearance and behaviour. Between 2 and 5 May, she was dealt a fatal blow to the stomach. She died on 6 May. Her stepmother and her father were convicted of her manslaughter and her wilful neglect at Norwich Crown court on 2 October 2001.
That bare recital of the facts, appalling as it is, conceals the real concerns about this case, which are that Lauren's treatment by her stepmother took place in public, observed by the local community and under the gaze of doctors, teachers and social workers. Trial evidence revealed that Tracey Wright was seen hitting the child and screaming abuse at her; that she fed her pepper sandwiches and put bugs from the garden in her food; that the taps in the house were turned off so tightly that the child could not get a drink of water; that she was made to carry the schoolbags of her step-siblings; that she was taunted and tormented by her stepmother in the local shop, and was made to stand for hours fully dressed in front of a hot stove. Her class teacher, in evidence at the trial, said that she saw marks on Lauren
"lots of times, often she was covered with lots of small bruises and with major bruises about once a month. These included black eyes, bruising on her face and scratches across her back."
At the time of her death at the age of six, Lauren weighed little more than two stone. In the words of her head teacher, her physical deterioration had been
"apparent for at least five months before she died."
There can be no doubt that in Tracey Wright, the stepmother convicted of manslaughter, the agencies were dealing with an exceptionally evil woman. Martin Wright, the acting chief superintendent, said:
"I think that any human being who can inflict this kind of treatment on a defenceless child must notch up very near the top of the scale of inhumanity"—
and that is a comment from a policeman.
Tracey Wright was clearly also incredibly plausible. She apparently had an IQ of 78, but nevertheless deceived doctors, teachers and social workers. As Mrs. Cooper of Easton, near Norwich, in a letter to me dated 2 October said:
"Little Lauren went from six stone to just over two, her hair was falling out, she was of a shabby appearance, she seemed sad, not to mention all the different horrific bruising she endured. However plausible and deceitful Tracey Wright was, you just don't keep accepting excuses when a child is constantly and clearly suffering like Lauren. This was going on for sixteen months, not just a one off occurrence, what more evidence did they need?"
After Lauren's death, Norfolk social services department asked the area child protection committee to review its procedures. That department is already the subject of a critical child care inspection report, carried out in 2000. Lauren's death is the fourth in as many years of a child under the protection of Norfolk social services. The ACPC report reveals some of the failures

223WH
in Lauren's case, including failure to follow up action and no action at all being taken following reports from the public of abuse. As David Wright, the director of social services, in a letter to me of 29 August said:
"There were failings in other agencies but I believe that our Department should have been able to intervene to save her."
Mr. Wright has been candid about the shortcomings of his own department. We are not to know if any disciplinary action is to follow this appalling affair, but it is clear that there is a shortage of resources for Norfolk social services—although I shall not major on that point. Mr. Wright describes the position thus:
"Our thin blue line of child protection workers feels stretched close to transparency."
He points out the contrast between Norfolk funding which, on paper anyway, allocates to services for children under 18 something like £117 per head, while for Westminster the allocation is £577 per head—five times the amount that Norfolk is adjudged to need. That, although it is a point, is not the main point that I want to make.
The trial following the death of Lauren Wright convicted her stepmother and father of manslaughter and wilful neglect, but its purpose was not to examine the roles of the public services involved. Those public services are accountable not only to all of us but to the 750 other vulnerable children in Norfolk. That is why I seek a public inquiry into the series of muddles, blind eyes, missed chances, errors and sloppy professional practice revealed by Lauren's death.
The Minister, whom I am glad to see here, will want to explain how Department of Health officials could have rejected my call for an inquiry before it reached her desk. She may even care to dissociate herself from their chilling words. I quote from The Times of 2 October:
"It would not be appropriate to hold a public inquiry into all the child killings that happen each year."
My plea is supported by nigh on 1,000 readers of the Fenland Citizen, a local newspaper, who have taken the trouble to petition the paper to indicate their support, and by the 98 per cent. of the Norwich-based Evening News readers who, in a telephone poll, demanded a public inquiry. That has been the unanimous message from the countless letters, telephone calls and e-mails that I have received from members of the public. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, who supports me, is here, and there is strong cross-party support for a public inquiry.
The following questions are among those that must be answered. What was the role of Hertfordshire social services department in the affair? Did it make its Norfolk colleagues aware of its concerns for Lauren? Why did it visit Lauren in April 2000? If it had not, would Norfolk social services have remained unaware of Lauren's plight? Did the head and class teacher at the William Marshall school in Welney follow Norfolk's child protection procedures that were in force at the time of Lauren's death? Those procedures require teachers to report to the education welfare service, among other things that might indicate the abuse of a child:
"listlessness, poor physical growth, weight loss, looking very tired, bruising or lacerations."
I do not know whether the teachers did what their own authority required. Press reports indicate that they expressed their concerns only to Tracey Wright. Did
224WH
they, or did they not, follow the local education authority's procedures? If they did not, what action will the LEA take, and did they really not do that because neither of the two teachers was a designated teacher? The school has only 30 pupils, for heaven's sake; there is the head and there is the teacher. One of the excuses for taking no action is that at the time there was no designated teacher concerned with non-accidental injury to children. That is the most extraordinary excuse that I have ever heard. What was the role of the head teacher? If there was not a designated teacher, was the head teacher able to say, "There isn't a designated teacher, so it's nothing to do with me." We do not know. How long was the school without a designated teacher, and what did the LEA do about that problem? When was Tracey Wright dismissed from her post at the school? On the day that she was found guilty of manslaughter? I suspect so.
What action was taken by the paediatrician who saw Lauren Wright on 30 November 1999, fully five months before she died? Was it his advice that "reassured" social services so that it took no action at that stage, which self-evidently was a time when Lauren could have been saved? On 14 and 15 March 2000, when Lauren was seen by a general practitioner and then a paediatrician, did they discuss their differing interpretations of the bruising on her body? What contact did the paediatrician have with the school to support his assertion that the bruising had been caused by bullying at school? Lauren could, even at that stage, have been saved. I put those questions to the Norfolk health authority. It replied that it was not
"able to supply information that is not currently in the public domain."
However, there have been developments. Last night, the chairman of the Norfolk health authority, Mr. John Alston, contacted me. He told me that the letter from the health authority to me, dated 12 October 2001, was neither factually correct—that was not the word that he used, but we are in Parliament now—nor complete. He said that the original version of the letter, which I have not seen, but which is being faxed to my home this morning, had been reduced and altered by the regional press officer to the version that I was given. What sort of operation is this? Obviously, I will pursue the matter—I am not majoring on that this morning either, because the Minister has not been warned and clearly cannot know the answer. However, she will hear from me, especially when I receive the original version of the letter. This does, however, support my demand for a public inquiry. How can we trust the health service if it cannot even give a Member of Parliament a factually correct and complete set of answers to a number of questions?
Norfolk social services has rightly shouldered much of the blame for the case, but its professionals are not the only ones involved, nor is it the only local authority concerned. People from all over the United Kingdom have contacted me to express their disgust at the circumstances of Lauren's death, with its revelations of failure of professional judgment and liaison. They, and we, are not prepared to be fobbed off with promises of internal NHS agency inquiries, in which the conduct of the doctors concerned will be examined by other doctors. Nor will we be fobbed off with attempts to bolt this case on to another appalling case, that of Victoria

225WH
Climbie. We are sick and tired of hearing about procedures, strategies, reports and restructuring. In the name of the thousands of vulnerable children at risk across Britain, the Minister should today demonstrate her concern by announcing an immediate public inquiry into the case of tragic Lauren Wright.
1.16 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing this debate and on her tenacity in pursuing an appalling case. It is a special case in that it is the fifth in Norfolk in the past few years. The public in Norfolk have a crisis of confidence in social services and their delivery on such issues. That will have to be addressed by an open and transparent public inquiry. There is a lot to be said and there should be no attempt to hide what went on in this tragic case. Unless there is a public inquiry, confidence in Norfolk will erode. Such a case must never ever happen again—and if we do not get it right, there will be another such case.
I am not going to blame individuals. A failure in the development of services has been admitted to. If we are to achieve the change that we need in the way in which such situations are addressed, only an inquiry will bring out all the issues in an open and transparent way and ensure that the public acquire the confidence that is sadly lacking.
I would like the inquiry not to be secret. It is possible to have an inquiry whose chair decides to open only a specific aspect to the public. That would increase suspicion. The whole inquiry will have to be open, because the case has touched the people of Norfolk so deeply. The morale of those who work for social services must be at rock bottom, too. There is a resource requirement to be examined. The way in which we treat our children, viewing them as possessions about whom no one can ask questions, is a general problem in society, which such an inquiry would illustrate.
I give my full support to the right hon. Lady in her demand for a public inquiry. I hope that the Minister will listen and ensure that there is one. The case is a special one, against the background of a county struggling with such issues. Comparisons with anywhere else are not valid at this stage. Will the Minister ensure that the debate is opened up? We must see to it that this never happens again in Norfolk in our time.
Norman Lamb rose—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): I shall call the hon. Gentleman, but we do want to hear the Minister's answers to the questions that have been put. That is important.
1.18 pm
Norman Lamb: I understand that. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and will keep my remarks brief.
The revelation that we have heard today concerning the apparent doctoring of a letter from the health authority is of enormous concern. It smacks to me of a spin too far, and of a cover-up, which strengthens the
226WH
case for a full and proper public inquiry. For an information officer of a public body to conceal information is contrary to the whole public service ethos and ethic. I share the view of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) that it is extraordinary that the officials in the Department of Health rejected calls for a public inquiry within hours of the verdict, without first hearing the case for one.
A public inquiry should consider two specific issues. It is important that we do not demonise social services or social workers. The thrust of an inquiry must be to avoid future tragedies. We must also examine the impact of staffing on the service, and the protection that it can provide with current staffing levels. We must confront that critical issue. We need to look at the co-ordination between agencies and different social services departments. I understand that issues of confidentiality and the requirements of data protection legislation may be preventing the necessary sharing of information. The use of information technology should give those who need to know access to information that can help inform judgment. An inquiry should consider whether data protection rules place impediments in the way of sharing information and investigating facts. For those reasons, I fully support the cause of the right hon. Lady and I urge the Government to avoid further delay in calling a public inquiry.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): I call the Minister.
Mr. Henry Bellingham rose—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): We must give the Minister a chance to respond.
Mr. Bellingham: I simply want to say that, as a neighbouring MP, I wholly support my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs Shephard).
1.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), and I acknowledge the widespread support from people in all parties for the points that she has made. The death of any child is desperately sad, but the death of a child through abuse or neglect is tragic. We know that at least one child each week dies as a result of abuse or neglect. That figure is horrifying. We must all share the responsibility of trying to protect children from abuse and neglect; it is a monumental task. Home Office research indicates that more than 100,000 adults in the UK have convictions for offences against children.
All agencies, and all people with child protection responsibilities, have to work together. As hon. Members have outlined, health, education, social services and other agencies make a complex jigsaw, the role of which is to ensure that concerns are picked up. We are all too aware of the tragedies that can unfold when vital information is not shared between different agencies.
Lauren's death should not have happened. Social services have made a public acknowledgement that had the procedures been followed, the matter would have

227WH
been noticed, action would have been taken, and Lauren's death would have been avoided. However, I want to make it clear that Lauren was not killed by social workers or health workers. Lauren was killed by those who should have been caring for her—people who should have safeguarded, nurtured and cherished her. Mistakes were clearly made in the inter-agency handling of the case, but we must not place the responsibility for her death solely at the door of the statutory agencies.
There is always publicity when things go wrong in child protection cases because of the nature of the issues, but too often little is said about the excellent work carried out by social services and other agencies across the country to protect hundreds of thousands of children from harm. Some 160,000 children are referred to social services every year. Nearly 30,000 are added to the child protection register each year, and the vast majority of those children will have better lives because once they are registered the authorities can intervene and be effective. It would be very wrong to think that all children are being failed by our child protection system, but when things go wrong, we have a vital responsibility to find out why.
The "Working Together to Safeguard Children" guidance states that when factors of abuse or neglect are known or suspected to be a factor in a death, local agencies should get together to consider whether lessons can be learned from the terrible incident. When a child dies in such circumstances, the area child protection committee should always conduct a review, the purpose of which is to identify the lessons to be learned and to set out steps about how they will be acted upon, what is expected to change as a consequence, and how interagency operations can be improved. A serious case review of the circumstances leading up to Lauren's death has been undertaken. A summary of that review was published on 5 October, and there is an action plan to take forward all its recommendations.
Norfolk social services department is already under close regional monitoring as a result of a report into children's services in 2000. The Department of Health social services inspectorate will continue to monitor the implementation of that specific action plan by the social services department. The area child protection committee will take local responsibility for the implementation of those plans. There will be a follow-up inspection by the social services inspectorate, which is planned for January. It will assess the safety of all procedures in Norfolk and, crucially, how the recommendations are being implemented. A social services inspectorate and Audit Commission joint review are scheduled for March 2002, which will again closely monitor the situation.
I understand Members' desire for a public inquiry into Lauren's death. We must be satisfied that the lessons learned from the serious case review and the action plan are being learned in Norfolk. There are several specific matters that the action plan promotes in terms of training, assessment frameworks and an integrated electronic recording system. One big issue in the case concerned the series of notes written by GPs and other professionals involved. There was no way in which those notes could have been brought together. With consent, an electronic system can help to ensure that those notes are immediately available and that we have protocols about data sharing, which is an important issue.
228WH
All primary care trusts have a named doctor and a nurse for child protection. We must ensure that they take their responsibilities seriously. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) that we are all responsible in that regard. Simply designating somebody to take on that responsibility does not remove it from everybody else involved in the system.
The question has been raised of having a public inquiry into this particular incident. There is obviously an on-going public inquiry into the case of Victoria Climbie. It is important to explain why the decision was taken to have a public inquiry in that case, but not in that of Lauren Wright. It is the first statutory inquiry into the death of a child for more than 20 years; there is not a public inquiry into each incident. The major reason why there has been an inquiry into the Victoria Climbie case concerns the complexity of the system, which involved approximately nine different statutory agencies. We want to ensure that we learn the lessons from that inquiry, and how they can impact on incidents such as the one that we have discussed today. We shall ensure that the issues raised by the Climbie case are taken into account in Norfolk. We already have a wide-ranging inquiry in operation and we do not want to duplicate the issues that will arise from it.
Another key reason why a public inquiry will not take place in the case of Lauren Wright is that there will be an external independent review covering the health services aspects of the case, which concern the King's Lynn and Wisbech trust, the West Norfolk primary care trust and the Fenland primary care trust.
Mrs. Shephard: Will that review be conducted by doctors?
Ms Blears: It will be conducted by the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Paediatricians. It will be external and independent, and people who have not been involved in the case will conduct it. It is expected that the review will cover competence and confidence, communication and transfer of information, and the policies and procedures within each trust. The action plan that has been produced provides a positive way forward for dealing with the specific issues concerning child protection in the Norfolk area. I take the point that there are other cases that underline Members' concerns about issues in that area.
The best way to safeguard children in Norfolk is to ensure that we implement the recommendations in the action plan. We must monitor that process and ensure that those steps are being taken. In future, there must be proper co-ordination across all agencies because, as has been said, if the procedures had been followed in this case, Lauren need not have died. Later, we can learn the lessons of the Victoria Climbie inquiry to try to make sure that we safeguard children wherever they may be. We are taking steps to ensure that we protect children in this community as far as we possibly can. The scale of the problem is immense, but we must ensure that the action plan is implemented in Norfolk, as well as elsewhere in the country. Lauren's death need not—and indeed, must not—have been in vain.

Consumer Credit
1.29 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: In securing this debate, my original intention was to examine the words of a young Back Bencher who, in 1987, was discussing that part of the consumer credit industry referred to as "sub-prime". He said:
"I think you need some measure of control and regulation to ensure that the unscrupulous aren't lending to the desperate when there's no possibility of repayment."
The young Back Bencher in question is now the Prime Minister.
I planned to examine today what effect the intervening years have had on the consumer credit industry. I wanted to look at current Government proposals, such as the task force on overindebtedness, and to discuss with the Minister ways in which consumer credit legislation could be updated. However, a particular aspect of the consumer credit industry has come to the fore during my investigations of the past 24 hours, and it is that aspect that I now want to raise with the Minister. She and I therefore share a common dilemma in that both of us may have to tear up our prepared speeches. I trust that she will be able to go with the flow of today's discussion.
On Friday 28 November 1997, before His Honour Judge Rubery at Stoke-on-Trent county court, the case of City Mortgage Corporation v. Riley was concluded. Given the Minister's previous role in the Government, she will be familiar with City Mortgage Corporation and many other financial corporations that I will talk about today. It must be said that CMC is not a company with a good track record in the industry. This was a typical case, like many that CMC had taken to court, involving repossession of a family's property. Of course, the mortgage had been secured on the property, but I am pleased to say that the judgment was not as CMC might have expected.
CMC argued that, although an equitable interest had been transferred to an American-based company called Greenwich International Ltd., CMC none the less had the right to enforce the debt. I am pleased to say that the court found otherwise. Mrs. Riley had done quite a bit of background work, and discovered documentary evidence showing that the legal interest, as well as the equitable interest, had been transferred to Greenwich International. The charge by CMC had never been registered because the Rileys' mortgaged property was not registered land. In accordance with section 114 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the deeds operate to transfer all rights to sue on the security to Greenwich International in America, rather than City Mortgage Corporation.
The long and the short of it is that, having pursued this debt, City Mortgage Corporation was found unable to do so by the courts because it had no legal standing, and costs were awarded against CMC. Before dealing with the significance of this case, I must tie it in with a second case that was heard at Basingstoke county court on 21 March last year, over which His Honour Judge Anthony Thompson QC was presiding. The case was that of Rozak v. Capital Credit Ltd. I know that the Minister will be familiar with the name of Capital Credit.
230WH
Judge Thompson's summation outlined the following. The proceedings had been commenced in February 1998, at which stage it was a mortgage possession action brought by the then claimants, City Mortgage Corporation—hon. Members will see that a link is already beginning to develop—against Mr. and Mrs. Rozak in respect of their property. That claim was settled and the Rozaks lost their property. However, the case that Judge Thompson was dealing with was a claim by the Rozaks against Capital Credit Ltd.
The background is that Mr. and Mrs. Rozak lived at their home for about 20 years prior to its repossession. It was a council house that they were eventually able to purchase under the Government's right-to-buy scheme. They bought the property with the aid of a mortgage of £29,000 from the Nationwide building society. Problems set in for the Rozaks in 1992, when Mrs. Rozak lost her job as a result of industrial injury, and arrears began to accrue on the property. Judgments were made against them in the county court. I stress that at all stages the Nationwide building society acted absolutely properly in this case.
By 1997, the situation had become quite serious and the Rozaks were on the point of having legal action taken against them by the Nationwide. During a further visit from the building society, the seriousness of their financial position and the arrears that had fallen due were made clear to them.
In effect, the Rozaks needed to borrow £7,500, but they did not know where they were going to get it from. At that time they saw in the News of the World an offer of loans and finance placed by Capital Credit Ltd., which said that they had a chance to
"clear all your debts with cash to spare on low monthly payments".
Sums from £3,000 to £250,000 could be agreed. It was a tempting offer, which the Rozaks could not refuse, so they got in touch with Capital Credit. Capital Credit told them that because of their bad credit history it would not be able to give them the loan. However, it then offered them the opportunity to have someone come and talk to them about the possibility of a different loan, and sent a broker to meet them for that purpose.
At the meeting, the Rozaks were completely duped. They had wanted a loan of £7,500, but they were induced to remortgage entirely; instead of paying off their loan to the Nationwide, the new broker put them into an agreement with the City Mortgage Corporation. That loan was for a figure of some £47,000—a sum that at the increased rates of interest due on the mortgage, the Rozaks had no possible way of repaying.
What the Rozaks did not know was that the broker was a tied broker, and that they had entered into an agreement with City Mortgage Corporation with the original broker from Capital Credit. That agreement—I have a copy here, and will be happy to make it available to the Minister—was dated 21 December 1995 and was between City Mortgage Corporation Ltd., Capital Credit Ltd. and a certain Mr. Anthony Murtagh. It is a commission agreement. The court rightly looked at the agreement and the ruling by Judge Thompson explained that the broker was legally obliged to act on behalf of the Rozaks, but had not done so.

231WH
It was clear from the right of first refusal in the agreement that Capital Credit acted as agents of the party whom they introduced—City Mortgage Corporation—rather than the Rozaks, and that although they owed that fiduciary duty to the Rozaks, they had in fact received secret commissions under the terms of the agreement. The court found that those commissions should be repaid, and that sum, plus costs, was made over to the Rozaks. However, to receive approximately £9,000 after losing the family home was a severe and bitter blow. It did not seem like compensation, because CMC had already obtained the Rozaks' home under a previous court judgment and sold it at a vast profit.
It is clear that secret commissions are a feature of the sub-prime lending market. Most mortgage lenders pay a fee to brokers for introducing a borrower; that is standard practice throughout the industry. The fee paid by a high-street lender for a standard domestic mortgage would probably be around £250. However, a non-status lender in the sub-prime market, which specialises in lending to people with poor credit ratings, often pays brokers a much higher introductory commission of up to 10 per cent. of the loan. That creates a clear conflict of interest between broker and client. If the broker persuades a prime lender to grant a £50,000 loan, the client receives an inexpensive loan, but the broker receives only around £250. If the broker places the client with a non-status lender or sub-prime lender, the broker may pocket up to £3,000, which is a common figure for brokers in the sub-prime market to expect as commission. In the Rozaks case there was not only £3,000 up-front commission, but additional secret commission which took the figure up to about £8,000. The rule of thumb is that the worse the mortgage, the higher the commission paid to the broker.
Some mortgage brokers place themselves in a particularly difficult position, as did Capital Credit, because they take commission from both sides. Capital Credit took the up-front commission of £3,000 but also received a finder's fee from the lender, or a first refusal commission, as the agreement to which I referred explains. Under civil law, a bribe is the payment of secret commission, which only means that, first, the person making the payment makes it to the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; secondly, he makes it to that person knowing that that person is acting as the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; thirdly, he fails to disclose to that other person with whom he is dealing that he has made the payment to the person whom he knows to be the other person's agent. If a lender gives money to a broker and does not tell the borrower that he is doing so, no matter what the intention, it is a bribe under the law. It is not necessary to establish a corrupt motive, nor does the principal have to show that the agent was influenced by the bribe.
The judge concluded by stating:
"there is no doubt that the defendants (Capital Credit) were tied brokers and had to offer, pursuant to the 'first refusal' agreement, all transactions primarily to CMC. It is also clear that there was a secret commission which was by the very nature of the first refusal agreement kept confidential and which was paid to the defendants by City Mortgage Corporation apparently on 1 May 1997 in respect of this transaction... At the end of the day what this comes to is this, here was a secret commission and on the basis of the authorities to which I have referred I am satisfied that in those
232WH
circumstances Mr. and Mrs. Rozak are entitled either to recover damages or at their election to recover the commissions which were paid."
The Rozaks did that, but it was not adequate compensation for having been duped into remortgaging, for not being able to pay off their original small debt to Nationwide, and for subsequently finding that their home was repossessed.
I started my speech by referring to the other case, in which it became clear that parties who had no right to repossess a home were doing so. That is the situation with regard to much of the sub-prime market. The Land Registry should record a charge against a property, as under the Companies Act—section 395, which is about the first charge form—only where the parties seeking to record such an interest have proved that they are creditors with all the rights, responsibilities and duties pursuant under the definition of a creditor under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
At the moment, it is possible for someone to register a charge against a property even though they are not the legal owner of the loan against that property. The original case that Judge Rubery ruled on sets that out clearly. Unfortunately, the Land Registry does not make that clear, so most people in the sub-prime market have a charge against their property recorded by someone who is not the legal owner of the loan.
The case of City Mortgage Corporation offers a very good example of how that has been done. The company collapsed in 1997 as a result of a class action brought against the parent company, which was called Cityscape. The action was brought by the shareholders as they had, in effect, been lied to about how United Kingdom loans had been securitised. An out-of-court settlement was agreed with those shareholders, which was worth many millions of dollars. After City Mortgage Corporation collapsed, a company called Ocwen US began to collect the UK loans. Borrowers thought that Ocwen US owned the loans, but it did not. Ocwen US then set up a company called Ocwen UK, which sought to buy out the loans from Cityscape. There was a falling out over that, and in 1998, when the Office of Fair Trading issued guidelines to stop dual interest rates, Ocwen UK announced a mortgage holiday. That marked one of the substantial successes of the Office of Fair Trading at that time.
Ocwen UK was bought by the Royal Bank of Scotland in 1998 and a new company called the "I" Group was set up. I am aware that these names are very familiar to the Minister—although of course I am not referring to the Royal Bank of Scotland. The "I" Group is another extremely disreputable lending company. The Royal Bank of Scotland's intention was to clean up the sub-prime market. In fact, the "I" Group did not adhere to the regulations attached to it by the Royal Bank of Scotland and Ocwen Loans was still being sold and marketed as such until the middle of 2000. The "I" Group has now been bought out by GE Capital. In June of this year, it paid approximately £200 million for £1.6 billion worth of loans.
The difficulty is not keeping tabs on such matters—which is difficult enough—but in drawing together the strands. I want to explain matters as briefly as possible so that the Minister can at least acknowledge the problems. I do not expect her to make a substantive response this morning, but I hope that she will

233WH
undertake to explore them further. Claims like that by Mr. and Mrs. Rozak are outstanding against the "I" Group, which is owned by GE Capital, which bought it from the Royal Bank of Scotland, and they could be worth about £1.25 billion. Such claims are every bit as good as the Rozaks' claim, and would stand up in court against the group because of the way in which homes have been repossessed by companies that had no legal ownership of the loans outstanding and charged against those properties.
The Government should regulate to make it illegal for any broker to conclude a loan agreement without the inclusion of a standard sheet or form setting out clearly and precisely all remuneration that the broker receives by way of commission or in any other way from the lender or any other party in respect of the contract. The broker is, and should be, the agent of the borrower. The mortgage code lays that down, and it is followed by most of the major mortgage companies and lenders. However, the code is ritually ignored in the sub-prime market, so the borrower does not know of the secret commissions and bribes that are paid when he or she takes out a loan. They form part of the illegal commissions that companies such as CMC, Ocwen and the "I" Group have been receiving and have based their business on in the sub-prime sector for many years.
It is also important that the Government review the decision of the Office of Fair Trading to refrain from taking proceedings in the restrictive practices court in respect of the agreement between City Mortgage Corporation Ltd., Capital Credit Ltd. and Anthony Murtagh, to which I referred earlier. That agreement is no longer in force, but the OFT should initiate proceedings in respect of what happened. The Minister should convene a meeting with GE Capital about the claims that the "I" Group, which it owns, faces about the secret commissions on loan contracts that the group had concluded. The meeting should focus on the practice in the market of pursuing such loans through a party that, although registered at the Land Registry as having a first charge against the property, had no legal ownership of the loans in the first place.
1.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): My hon. Friend raises an interesting topic that concerns many consumers. He will forgive me if I concentrate largely on the general issues, because, as he will be aware, I have not received any prior details of some of the specific points that he made.
Many people use consumer credit because of the flexibility that it gives them in their financial planning, and to buy goods and services that they might otherwise be unable to afford. To make informed and confident decisions about credit, consumers need good quality information that allows them to make intelligent choices between different products and makes them aware of the risks to which they may be exposing themselves, especially in the case of loans secured on property. Those points are all relevant to the general thrust of my hon. Friend's argument.
234WH
Consumers rely on consumer credit legislation to ensure that they receive the right information to provide them with the necessary protection. That is especially important for so-called non-status credit, when consumers face reduced choice because of problems that they have encountered with credit in the past, and may be at risk of exploitation.
The Consumer Credit Act covers credit of up to £25,000, so it would not cover some of the figures that my hon. Friend cited. It has been on the statute book since 1974, and the bulk of its associated regulations have been in place since the early 1980s. Its essential philosophy—that there should be truth in lending—remains as valid today as in 1974. Several amendments have been made to it since then, but there has been no major reform for almost 30 years. As I believe that there is room for improvement, I announced in July that the Department of Trade and Industry would undertake a wide review of the Act.
Several key factors led me to the conclusion that now is the time to review the Act. Credit products and marketing methods have changed a lot since 1974, and we need to ensure that the Act remains relevant and continues to offer consumers the protection that they need in the modern credit environment. In our election manifesto the Government undertook to increase protection against loan sharks. We need to examine whether existing protections against extortionate credit are effective, and whether provisions on consumer credit licensing can be improved so that the Office of Fair Trading can take vigorous enforcement action against rogue lenders and, when justified, exclude them from the market.
When I was Economic Secretary to the Treasury I decided that the Financial Services Authority should take responsibility for regulating mortgages, and the new regulatory regime is due to start next year. We need to ensure that regulation under the Consumer Credit Act complements the FSA regime.
Last year, the Government set up a task force on tackling overindeb edness. Its report, which I received earlier this year, contains several recommendations that I want to take forward. Some overlap with the subject matter of the Act, and it makes sense to take them forward at the same time as part of our review.
When I announced in July that we would be reviewing the Act, the DTI published a consultation paper entitled "Tackling loan sharks—and more", which set out the key objectives for the review—to develop a new consumer credit regime that targets rogue traders, reduces burdens on legitimate business, reflects market changes in consumer credit and improves the advice and information that consumers receive about consumer credit products.
Many of the changes that we want to make to our consumer credit legislation will have a particular impact on non-status credit. Our proposed changes affecting consumer credit licensing and extortionate credit will crack down on rogue lenders and help consumers who are parties to unfair deals. Our work on improving the transparency of loan information will also help

235WH
consumers identify good deals and avoid those that are not such good value. The Director General of Fair Trading used his powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to introduce guidelines to set out practices that he regards as deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not, and which would be likely to lead him to take regulatory action against licence holders or to consider his powers under the unfair terms and consumer contracts legislation.
236WH
My hon. Friend has raised some interesting questions. The next course of action for him to take would be to set out his concerns in further detail in writing to me at the DTI, and if he does, I shall take up and consider the issues that he raises.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Prime Minister what the composition is of the Intelligence and Security Committee. [8271]

  The Prime Minister
  Following appropriate consultation and in accordance with section 10 of the Intelligence and Security Act 1994 I have appointed the following members to the Intelligence and Security Committee:

  The right hon. Ann Taylor MP (Chair)

  Kevin Barron MP

  The right hon. Alan Howarth MP CBE

  The right hon. Gavin Strang MP

  The right hon. Joyce Quin MP

  The right hon. Lord Archer of Sandwell QC

  The right hon. James Arbuthnot MP

  Michael Mates MP

  The right hon. Alan Beith MP.

  Copies of letters announcing these appointments were placed in the Library of the House on 30 July 2001.

HEALTH

  Public-private Partnerships
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings he has had with trade unions since 7 June to discuss public/private partnerships in the NHS. [3765]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have met with trade unions on a number of occasions to discuss a range of issues including public/private partnerships.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the availability of public capital for hospital building programmes. [3799]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the availability of public capital for the National Health Service. This matter will be discussed again at the Public Expenditure Ministerial Cabinet Committee as part of the current spending review process.

  Public capital will be considered for major hospital building projects when it is proven through the business case process to provide better value for money than a private finance initiative solution.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on cervical cancer screening in the NHS. [3777]

  Ms Blears
  In the year to March 2000, 3.6 million women were screened and laboratories examined 4.1 million smears. Research has shown that the incidence of cervical cancer fell by 43 per cent. between 1988 and 1997.

  Health and Social Care Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the provisions of section 49(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [3778]

  Jacqui Smith
  In line with our pledge in the NHS Plan, section 49(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 came into effect for those paying for their own care by a registered nurse on 1 October 2001. For those who are already state-funded, the provisions will come into effect on 1 April 2003.

  NHS/Private Sector Concordats
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to review the concordats between the NHS and the private sector. [3779]

  Mr. Hutton
  My officials are surveying health authorities and trusts on the extent and cost of the acute activity they commission from the private sector, and discussing experience to date with private sector providers and the NHS. The Centre for Health Economics at York University is also conducting a review of activity and experience.

  Beta Interferon
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the NICE report on the availability of beta interferon for MS sufferers. [3780]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence's Appraisal Committee is carefully considering the extensive comments on the Provisional Appraisal Determination. NICE expects to issue its guidance by December 2001.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the clinical benefits of beta interferon for MS sufferers. [3794]

  Mr. Hutton
  In view of the uncertainty over the appropriate use of beta interferon, we asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to conduct an authoritative appraisal on the evidence of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate. NICE expects to issue its guidance by December 2001.

  Health and Social Care
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his plans are for improving co-operation between health and social care. [3781]

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve co-operation between health and social care. [3784]
  1121W
  Jacqui Smith
  Improved co-operation is being encouraged through the Health Act 1999 flexibilities—pooled funds, lead commissioning and integrated provision, especially in intermediate care, community equipment and nursing care. Care trusts can now be formed as single organisations, commissioning and providing both health and social care. Fifteen care trust demonstrator sites are preparing to go live from April 2002 to April 2003, receiving financial support for the preparatory period from the money recently announced to reduce bed blocking. Co-operation on the use of this money will be supported by the capacity planning being carried out by the local health and social care economy.

  Diagnostic Testing
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for increasing the use of diagnostic testing in health care. [3782]

  Ms Blears
  Diagnostic services are key in meeting NHS Plan targets. Central procurement programmes for CT and MRI scanners are already delivering improvements in the diagnostic quality of images, supporting the work of clinicians and benefiting patients. Over the last two years we have invested £20 million in supporting innovative pathology modernisation projects and a further £8 million is being made available this year.

  Cloning
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to introduce legislation to ban the cloning of human beings; and if he will make a statement. [3783]

  Ms Blears
  Human reproductive cloning cannot and will not be carried out in the United Kingdom. Treatment using human embryos requires a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which has stated that it would not issue a licence for reproductive cloning. Anybody carrying out such treatment without a licence would be guilty of a criminal offence. We will introduce primary legislation to put this ban on a statutory footing as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Osteoporosis
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department is giving for services to help people with osteoporosis. [3785]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are well established clinical procedures in the NHS for dealing with osteoporosis. We have included specific targets for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in the National Standards Framework for Older People. We are also examining how osteoporosis can be included in our pre-retirement health check pilots.

  NHS Staff (Child Care)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to improve child care for NHS staff. [3786]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Childcare Strategy centres on providing good quality accessible and affordable child care. We are already making available funding of over £70 million for the provision of 150 additional on-site 1122W
  nurseries by 2004, creating around 7,500 further nursery places. We have also pledged a further £100 million to develop alternative forms of child care.

  Health Authorities (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the merger of health authorities in Lancashire. [3787]

  Jacqui Smith
  Public consultation is already under way on the proposal to create a new, strategic health authority (StHA) serving Lancashire and Cumbria. Consultation is taking place concurrently on the 27 other proposed StHAs in England, ending on 30 November 2001. Ministers will then decide on boundaries.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in tackling bed blocking in the health service. [3788]

  Jacqui Smith
  The proportion of people over 75 whose discharge from hospital was delayed fell to 11.1 per cent. in June 2001 compared with 12.1 per cent. in the same quarter in 2000. We are also investing an additional £300 million over this year and the next as part of a radical 'cash for change' programme designed to end widespread 'bed blocking' by 2004. £100 million will be available for the remainder of this financial year to April 2002 with £200 million available for 2002–03.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the amount of NHS hospital beds subject to bed blocking, broken down by each hospital trust in England and Wales, shown in actual terms and as a percentage of beds in use. [7618]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The proportion of people over 75 whose discharge from hospital was delayed fell to 11.1 per cent. in June 2001 compared with 12.1 per cent. in the same quarter in 2000. We are also investing an additional £300 million over this year and the next as part of a radical 'cash for change' programme designed to end widespread 'bed blocking' by 2004. £100 million will be available for the remainder of this financial year to April 2002 with £200 million available for 2002–03.

  NHS Dental Practices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dental practices there are in Pendle and Burnley; and how many are accepting new NHS patients. [3789]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are 16 national health service dental practices in Pendle, three of which are currently accepting all categories of NHS patients; another (one) practice is accepting children only. Burnley has 12 NHS practices, one of which is accepting NHS patients for dentures only.

  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that NHS dentistry is accessible in all areas. [3800]
  1123W
  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for the provision of dental services in England. Provision of services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the devolved bodies.

  In September 1999, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised that within two years everyone will be able to access national health service dentistry if and when they want it via NHS Direct. All health authorities in England now have in place dentistry action plans to ensure that everyone in their local area can access NHS dentistry if they want it within a reasonable time and distance. The plans identify shortfalls in service provision and ways of tackling unmet demand.

  We have invested over £100 million of additional funding in NHS dentistry in the last two years. Dental access centres offering a complete range of services to unregistered patients, are operating from over 100 sites and more are being developed. Funding has been made available to general dental practitioners to encourage them to treat more NHS patients. In addition regulations have been introduced allowing health authorities to use their own resources to access NHS dentistry tailored to the needs of their local communities.

  Information for patients on NHS dentistry via NHS Direct has been available nationally since the end of September. Callers seeking access to NHS dentistry will from now on be provided with information about the availability of NHS dental services within a reasonable distance of their homes.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dentists in the rural districts of North Yorkshire. [3801]

  Jacqui Smith
  Currently there is one dentist in Scarborough Town and another some three miles away in East Ayton accepting new National Health Service patients. There are also dentists in Whitby and Kirkbymoorside accepting new NHS patients. Additional resources have been allocated to a general dental practice in Scarborough to enable it to treat more unregistered NHS patients. The health authority has set up dental access centres in Scarborough, Whitby and York. The demand for these services is high and the health authority is considering expanding these dental access centres.

  Health Inequalities
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to tackle health inequalities; and if he will make a statement. [3790]

  Ms Blears
  In the NHS Plan we made a commitment to set national targets for reducing unacceptable inequalities in health which consistently widened under the last Government. In February of this year two new national targets for reducing health inequalities in infant mortality and life expectancy were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and at present we are consulting widely on the actions necessary to deliver them. Copies of the consultation document, "Tackling Health Inequalities", are available in the Library.

  NHS University
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with the establishment of a university of the NHS. [3791]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan included a commitment to establish an NHS University for all NHS staff. The recruitment process for a Chief Executive and project team to establish the NHS University has begun. A launch document, which gives more information about the vision for the University, has been published and will be widely circulated within the NHS, and within the academic community.

  Cancer Services
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve cancer services. [3792]

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve cancer services. [3797]

  Ms Blears
  By 2003–04 an additional £570 million will have been invested in cancer care. This money will support the appointment of new consultants; implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance to end the postcode lottery of care; cutting waiting times for cancer and increasing National Health Service investment in specialist palliative care services.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in the creation of Primary Care Trusts. [3793]

  Mr. Hutton
  One hundred and sixty four Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are already operational. There are around 150 applications from the remaining Primary Care Groups to become PCTs in April 2002, making PCTs the lead national health service organisations in assessing, planning and securing all health services and improving health.

  Radiotherapy Equipment
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the availability of radiotherapy equipment. [3795]

  Ms Blears
  Investment through the New Opportunities Fund and the NHS Plan will provide 102 linear accelerators for treating cancer. In addition, funding has been made available for radiotherapy treatment planning computers and simulation equipment to support these.

  Twenty-eight linear accelerators have been delivered and are expected to be treating patients by the end of the year. By 2004 all of the radiotherapy equipment will be in place.

  In addition, 86 MRI scanners and 186 CT scanners will be installed to help in the diagnosis of cancer.

  Osteopaths
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many treatments have been provided by osteopaths on the NHS in each year since 1992. [3796]

  Ms Blears
  Information about the number of osteopathic treatments provided on the national health service is not collected centrally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish a new contract for general practitioners. [3798]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to introducing a new quality-based contract by 2004 and have asked the National Health Service Confederation to negotiate this with the profession. The British Medical Association has indicated that it shares our aim and would like to see earlier implementation. Positive and constructive negotiations will facilitate this.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the requirement for general practitioners in Huntingdon to take account of anticipated house building in the area until 2011. [6172]

  Ms Blears
  In response to the anticipated population growth over the next few years Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust opened a new general practitioner practice in Huntingdon in March of this year. There are currently two GPs in the practice but the building has the capacity to accommodate four GPs. The PCT has planned that this additional capacity will address any increased demand on primary services until 2006.

  The development of primary care in Huntingdon beyond 2006 will depend on the outcome of the current study commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council into the urban planning for Cambridge and its surrounding market towns.

  Staff Retention
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the retention of staff working in the professions allied to medicine. [3802]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Meeting the Challenge" sets out our plans for developing and supporting Allied Health Professions and the central role they have to play in delivering the NHS Plan's key priorities. The NHS Plan also introduced the Improving Working Lives Standard to ensure that NHS employers create well-managed, flexible working environments that support all NHS staff.

  Coppice Family Doctor Practice
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will authorise the Coppice family doctor practice in Rustington, West Sussex to replace a full-time partner with two part-time doctors. [6760]

  Ms Blears
  It is not for Ministers to authorise the appointment of general practitioners. The decision is for the Medical Practices Committee (MPC), an independent, non-departmental statutory body. When a vacancy occurs in general practice it is the responsibility of the partners to fill the vacancy with a GP with the most appropriate 1126W
  skills to serve the local population. An application to the MPC has already been refused, but I understand that the submission of a further application is now being considered.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what clinical grounds parents seeking separate vaccinations for their children are being advised to give rubella vaccination first. [7212]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The information requested is not available centrally in the format requested.

  The Department, acting on the advice of its independent expert advisory committees and on the overwhelming view of experts from around the world, does not recommend or endorse the use of separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines instead of MMR. The Chief Medical Officer, Chief Nursing Officer and Chief Pharmaceutical Officer wrote to all doctors on 9 March 2001 reiterating their advice that
  "Children should not be given separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in place of MMR, since there is no evidence of benefit and a clear risk of harm from such a practice".
  We are not aware of any medical condition that would make the use of separate vaccines preferable to the use of MMR.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each of the last five years were given separate vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella. [7213]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The information requested is not available centrally.

  Transplant Units
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what date changes to the network of transplant units will be implemented; [7221]

  (2) what period of consultation will be allowed following the publication of proposals for the future of transplant units in Wythenshawe, Sheffield and Birmingham; [7222]

  (3) when he will publish his proposals for the future of transplant units in Wythenshawe, Sheffield and Birmingham. [7223]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The discussion document on the National Heart and Lung Transplant Service was published on Friday 21 September 2001. The Department of Health will receive comments until 7 December 2001.

  Our proposals for new national standards are set out in the discussion document National Adult Heat and Lung Transplant Service and will be reviewed in the light of the comments received.
  1127W
  We have already made it clear that the transplant units at Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham will remain open.

  Retirements (NHS)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of staff working in the NHS are due to retire in the next(a) five years, (b) 10 years and (c) 15 years. [8030]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of staff due to retire from the national health service is not collected centrally.

  Number of children looked after by local councils in England at 31 March 2000, by placement

  Number and rates per 10,000 children aged under-18

  Number

  Rate per 10,000

  All children1

  Foster placements

  Placed with parents or relative

  Other placements

  All children

  Foster placements

  Placed with parents or relative

  Other placements

  England

  58,100

  37,900

  6,500

  13,700

  51

  34

  6

  12

  North East

  Shire counties

  Durham

  525

  345

  55

  125

  47

  31

  5

  11

  Northumberland

  300

  175

  60

  65

  44

  26

  9

  10

  Unitary authorities

  Darlington

  115

  75

  15

  30

  51

  32

  6

  13

  Hartlepool

  115

  65

  35

  15

  52

  29

  16

  7

  Middlesbrough

  185

  135

  20

  30

  51

  36

  6

  9

  Redcar and Cleveland

  165

  115

  10

  35

  50

  36

  3

  11

  Stockton on Tees

  205

  125

  35

  45

  46

  28

  7

  10

  Metropolitan districts

  Gateshead

  260

  160

  30

  70

  60

  37

  7

  16

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  445

  305

  45

  95

  76

  51

  8

  16

  North Tyneside

  280

  185

  30

  65

  67

  44

  8

  15

  South Tyneside

  295

  180

  30

  80

  82

  51

  9

  23

  Sunderland

  465

  300

  40

  125

  68

  44

  6

  18

  North West

  Shire counties

  Cheshire

  475

  350

  40

  90

  32

  23

  3

  6

  Cumbria

  515

  325

  100

  90

  49

  31

  10

  9

  Lancashire

  1,445

  780

  265

  405

  55

  30

  10

  15

  Unitary authorities

  Blackburn and Darwen

  275

  160

  45

  75

  72

  42

  11

  19

  Blackpool

  285

  175

  25

  80

  92

  57

  8

  26

  Halton

  175

  135

  15

  25

  56

  43

  5

  8

  Warrington

  165

  120

  15

  30

  38

  27

  3

  7

  Metropolitan districts

  Bolton

  315

  185

  55

  75

  49

  28

  9

  12

  Bury

  195

  130

  25

  45

  46

  30

  6

  10

  Manchester

  1,235

  815

  195

  225

  110

  72

  18

  20

  Oldham

  300

  190

  30

  80

  54

  34

  6

  14

  Rochdale

  255

  155

  40

  60

  48

  30

  7

  12

  Salford

  570

  345

  80

  145

  108

  66

  16

  27

  Stockport

  350

  210

  50

  90

  54

  32

  8

  14

  Tameside

  265

  170

  45

  45

  50

  33

  9

  9

  Trafford

  150

  90

  15

  45

  30

  18

  3

  9

  Wigan

  465

  305

  85

  80

  66

  43

  12

  11

  Merseyside

  Metropolitan districts

  Knowsley

  250

  165

  35

  45

  61

  41

  9

  11

  Liverpool

  1,215

  715

  170

  330

  112

  66

  16

  31

  Sefton

  300

  195

  30

  80

  47

  31

  4

  12

  St. Helens

  270

  140

  40

  95

  67

  34

  9

  23

  Wirral

  395

  265

  60

  70

  52

  35

  8

  9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Shire counties

  North Yorkshire

  340

  235

  45

  60

  28

  19

  4

  5

  Unitary authorities

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  240

  150

  35

  55

  36

  22

  5

  8

  Kingston Upon Hull

  645

  410

  90

  145

  101

  64

  14

  23

  North East Lincolnshire

  275

  180

  35

  55

  72

  48

  9

  15

  Children in Care
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young persons are in care and how many of those are(a) fostered and (b) otherwise cared for separately from their natural parents in each social services authority in England; and what percentage of the total under-18 population this represents. [7503]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of children looked after in each social services authority by type and placement at 31 March 2000 (latest available date) is given in the table.
  1129W

  Number of children looked after by local councils in England at 31 March 2000, by placement

  Number and rates per 10,000 children aged under-18

  Number

  Rate per 10,000

  All children1

  Foster placements

  Placed with parents or relative

  Other placements

  All children

  Foster placements

  Placed with parents or relative

  Other placements

  North Lincolnshire

  190

  110

  40

  40

  55

  32

  11

  12

  York

  140

  80

  15

  45

  38

  21

  4

  13

  Metropolitan districts

  Barnsley

  335

  190

  60

  85

  65

  37

  12

  16

  Bradford

  685

  410

  95

  180

  54

  33

  7

  14

  Calderdale

  220

  135

  25

  55

  48

  30

  6

  13

  Doncaster

  435

  245

  75

  115

  63

  36

  11

  17

  Kirklees

  330

  155

  75

  100

  35

  16

  8

  11

  Leeds

  1,275

  835

  155

  280

  79

  52

  10

  17

  Rotherham

  370

  235

  60

  75

  62

  40

  10

  13

  Sheffield

  695

  410

  120

  165

  61

  36

  11

  15

  Wakefield

  455

  350

  40

  60

  61

  48

  6

  8

  East Midlands

  Shire counties

  Derbyshire

  645

  515

  25

  105

  40

  32

  1

  7

  Leicestershire

  275

  200

  30

  45

  20

  15

  2

  3

  Lincolnshire

  520

  295

  80

  140

  39

  22

  6

  11

  Northamptonshire

  610

  375

  55

  180

  41

  25

  4

  12

  Nottinghamshire

  530

  365

  40

  120

  32

  22

  3

  7

  Unitary authorities

  Derby

  445

  315

  35

  90

  81

  57

  7

  17

  Leicester

  465

  310

  50

  105

  63

  42

  6

  14

  Nottingham

  605

  385

  70

  150

  89

  57

  10

  22

  Rutland

  10

  5

  2—

  5

  10

  6

  1

  3

  West Midlands

  Shire Counties

  Shropshire

  190

  130

  5

  55

  31

  22

  1

  9

  Staffordshire

  570

  375

  70

  125

  321

  21

  4

  7

  Warwickshire

  350

  260

  35

  55

  31

  23

  3

  5

  Worcestershire

  640

  440

  90

  110

  54

  37

  8

  9

  Unitary authorities

  Herefordshire

  195

  145

  20

  35

  53

  38

  5

  9

  Stoke on Trent

  345

  230

  40

  70

  60

  40

  7

  13

  Telford and Wrekin

  155

  95

  10

  55

  41

  25

  3

  14

  Metropolitan districts

  Birmingham

  1,760

  1,030

  200

  525

  67

  39

  8

  20

  Coventry

  490

  290

  75

  125

  66

  39

  10

  17

  Dudley

  380

  240

  80

  65

  55

  35

  11

  9

  Sandwell

  440

  315

  70

  55

  62

  45

  10

  8

  Solihull

  180

  120

  20

  40

  38

  26

  4

  8

  Walsall

  365

  230

  35

  100

  59

  37

  6

  16

  Wolverhampton

  380

  250

  60

  70

  65

  43

  10

  12

  South West

  Shire Counties

  Cornwall

  565

  400

  60

  105

  54

  38

  6

  10

  Devon

  700

  490

  55

  155

  48

  34

  4

  11

  Dorset

  270

  215

  10

  45

  34

  27

  1

  6

  Gloucestershire

  505

  370

  65

  75

  40

  29

  5

  6

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  335

  230

  10

  95

  30

  21

  1

  9

  Wiltshire

  260

  195

  30

  35

  26

  20

  3

  3

  Unitary authorities

  Somerset

  145

  130

  5

  15

  43

  38

  1

  4

  Bournemouth

  205

  160

  5

  35

  67

  53

  2

  12

  Bristol

  555

  395

  45

  115

  63

  45

  5

  13

  North Somerset

  150

  110

  20

  20

  38

  27

  5

  6

  Plymouth

  405

  315

  25

  65

  72

  56

  5

  12

  Poole

  145

  110

  10

  25

  48

  37

  3

  8

  South Gloucestershire

  140

  105

  10

  20

  25

  19

  2

  4

  Swindon

  180

  140

  15

  20

  42

  33

  4

  5

  Torbay

  215

  150

  30

  35

  85

  59

  13

  13

  Eastern

  Shire counties

  Bedfordshire

  355

  200

  60

  100

  41

  23

  7

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  395

  285

  40

  75

  32

  23

  3

  6

  Essex

  1,205

  735

  125

  350

  42

  25

  4

  12

  Hertfordshire

  810

  590

  55

  170

  34

  24

  2

  7

  Norfolk

  680

  490

  35

  155

  41

  30

  2

  9

  Suffolk

  535

  355

  75

  100

  35

  23

  5

  7

  1130W 1131W

  Number of children looked after by local councils in England at 31 March 2000, by placement

  Number and rates per 10,000 children aged under-18

  Number

  Rate per 10,000

  All children1

  Foster placements

  Placed with parents or relative

  Other placements

  All children

  Foster placements

  Placed with parents or relative

  Other placements

  Unitary authorities

  Luton

  305

  220

  40

  50

  62

  44

  8

  10

  Peterborough

  390

  270

  55

  65

  101

  70

  14

  17

  Southend

  250

  195

  20

  35

  66

  51

  6

  10

  Thurrock

  185

  130

  10

  45

  56

  39

  3

  13

  London

  Inner London

  Camden

  330

  210

  10

  105

  88

  56

  3

  29

  City of London

  5

  5

  0

  0

  72

  72

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  465

  315

  40

  110

  86

  58

  8

  21

  Hackney

  490

  355

  30

  105

  95

  69

  5

  21

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  365

  255

  20

  90

  119

  83

  7

  29

  Islington

  545

  315

  15

  215

  143

  83

  4

  56

  Kensington and Chelsea

  215

  135

  10

  70

  68

  43

  3

  23

  Lambeth

  735

  420

  25

  285

  117

  67

  4

  45

  Lewisham

  495

  320

  35

  135

  84

  54

  6

  23

  Southwark

  600

  435

  30

  135

  104

  75

  5

  24

  Tower Hamlets

  280

  3—

  3—

  3—

  54

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Wandsworth

  345

  250

  25

  65

  70

  51

  5

  14

  Westminster

  290

  180

  30

  80

  76

  47

  7

  21

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  235

  165

  10

  65

  58

  40

  2

  16

  Barnet

  265

  195

  15

  55

  35

  26

  2

  8

  Bexley

  200

  150

  10

  40

  39

  29

  2

  8

  Brent

  295

  200

  30

  65

  49

  33

  5

  11

  Bromley

  250

  155

  30

  65

  40

  24

  5

  11

  Croydon

  395

  255

  50

  95

  50

  32

  6

  12

  Ealing

  430

  230

  40

  160

  62

  33

  6

  23

  Enfield

  250

  170

  10

  75

  40

  27

  1

  11

  Haringey

  435

  260

  10

  165

  85

  51

  2

  32

  Harrow

  175

  120

  15

  40

  36

  24

  3

  8

  Havering

  165

  115

  10

  40

  33

  23

  2

  8

  Hillingdon

  385

  245

  15

  120

  67

  43

  3

  21

  Hounslow

  255

  160

  30

  70

  52

  32

  6

  14

  Kingston Upon Thames

  105

  55

  5

  50

  34

  17

  2

  15

  Merton

  185

  130

  20

  35

  46

  31

  5

  9

  Newham

  485

  375

  30

  80

  68

  52

  4

  11

  Redbridge

  145

  85

  15

  45

  26

  16

  2

  8

  Richmond Upon Thames

  110

  65

  10

  35

  29

  17

  3

  9

  Sutton

  145

  100

  20

  25

  36

  24

  5

  6

  Waltham Forest

  325

  170

  5

  150

  60

  31

  1

  27

  South East

  Shire counties

  Buckinghamshire

  255

  165

  40

  50

  23

  15

  3

  4

  East Sussex

  465

  300

  70

  95

  44

  28

  7

  9

  Hampshire

  905

  550

  125

  230

  32

  19

  4

  8

  Kent

  1,500

  1,080

  145

  270

  49

  35

  5

  9

  Oxfordshire

  470

  285

  65

  120

  33

  20

  4

  8

  Surrey

  670

  380

  85

  205

  28

  16

  4

  9

  West Sussex

  750

  490

  75

  190

  46

  30

  5

  12

  Unitary authorities

  Bracknell Forest

  65

  30

  5

  35

  23

  10

  1

  12

  Brighton and Hove

  345

  275

  30

  45

  71

  56

  6

  9

  Isle of Wight

  175

  125

  30

  20

  67

  48

  11

  8

  Medway Towns

  345

  245

  15

  80

  57

  41

  3

  14

  Milton Keynes

  3—

  3—

  0

  0

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  West Berkshire

  130

  85

  5

  40

  38

  25

  2

  11

  Portsmouth

  220

  130

  40

  50

  54

  32

  10

  12

  Reading

  130

  55

  15

  60

  40

  17

  5

  18

  Slough

  135

  80

  20

  40

  49

  29

  6

  14

  Southampton

  385

  240

  75

  65

  82

  52

  16

  14

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  90

  45

  5

  40

  28

  14

  1

  13

  Wokingham

  85

  45

  5

  35

  25

  14

  1

  10

  1 All children looked after under a series of short-term placements have been excluded from this table

  2 Indicates less than 3

  3Data not available

  Note:

  All numbers of children rounded to the nearest 5.

  Source:

  CLA 100

  NHS Treatment (Costs)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which categories of person, on the basis of age, marital status, duration of residence in UK, contribution record, immigration status, nationality and other characteristics, are eligible for(a) free emergency treatment in NHS hospitals, (b) free non-emergency treatment in NHS hospitals, (c) free treatment by NHS general medical practitioners, (d) free treatment by NHS dental practitioners and (e) NHS drug prescriptions; [7954]

  (2) what powers he has to recover the cost of treatment under the NHS of persons ineligible for free treatment; [7955]

  (3) how much was recovered, in the last year for which information is available, of the cost of treatment under the NHS of persons ineligible for free treatment; and how much is estimated to remain uncollected. [7956]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no charge for any treatment given in a hospital accident and emergency department regardless of the personal circumstances of the patient. Patients who are not normally resident in the United Kingdom may be charged for any other treatment given by an NHS trust or primary care trust if they, or the treatment they are being given, are not specifically exempt from charges under the terms of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989, as amended. Copies of these regulations are available in the Library.

  The regulations place an obligation on health authorities, NHS trusts and primary care trusts to determine if a patient should be charged for their hospital treatment and, if so, to make and recover a charge for that treatment.

  There is no separately identifiable record held centrally of the amounts recovered from charge-liable overseas patients or the amount outstanding from them at any one time.

  There is no charge for any treatment which a general medical practitioner regards as emergency or immediately necessary, regardless of the personal circumstances of the patient. General medical and dental practitioners have discretion to accept or reject any patient, whether ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or not, for NHS treatment subject, in the case of dentistry, to the same charges as other UK residents. They are advised however to offer private treatment if it appears that a patient has come to the UK specifically to obtain treatment. Guidance on the eligibility of overseas patients to free primary care has been placed in the Library.

  Patients who are entitled to NHS hospital treatment or who have been accepted as NHS patients by a general practitioner or dentist are entitled to prescriptions on the same basis as other UK residents.

  Drugs (Children)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of drugs being used for the treatment of children which are not licensed for that purpose; [5278]
  1134W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the need for research to establish the safety and efficacy of all drugs used in the treatment of children; [5276]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of children who (a) died and (b) were injured as a result of treatment with drugs not licensed for the treatment of children in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [5274]

  (4) what steps he is taking to ensure that pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom provide clear dosage information for children and adults on all drugs they produce; and if he will make a statement; [5275]

  (5) what percentage of medicines used for treatment of children do not have a dosage approved by the Medicines Control Agency; and if he will make a statement. [5277]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]We recognise the critical importance of this issue and agree that children should have access to medicines that have been fully evaluated to the same high standards of safety, quality and efficacy as those available for the adult population. The issue is not confined to the United Kingdom, but affects the whole of Europe and the United States. Medicines regulation in the UK derives largely from European legislation and an international approach to the issue is therefore needed.

  We have consequently raised the profile of this issue at a European level, including taking the lead in developing a European guideline, adopted in 1997, to encourage companies to undertake appropriate clinical trials on the use of medicines in the treatment of children. This formed the basis for an international guideline, which came into operation in January in the EU, and also applies in the USA and Japan. In addition, the Council of the European Union has asked the European Commission to bring forward measures to make sure that medicines for children are fully adapted to their specific needs. We are presently waiting for their proposals. However, the Commission has stated its intention to comply with this request. The UK will play an active role in the development of this initiative to ensure that effective solutions are found.

  In addition, the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), the scientific advisory committee of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA), recognising the importance of this topic has announced its intention to set up a Paediatric Expert Group to advise the EMEA and its scientific committees on all questions relating to the development and use of medicinal products in children. The UK has nominated representatives to this Paediatric Expert Group.

  In the meantime, the UK Government have taken important steps to address the issue at a national level within the existing regulatory framework. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), an independent expert committee that advises the Licensing Authority has established a Paediatric Sub-Group to provide expert advice on the regulatory strategy to improve the availability of medicines licensed for use in children. MCA now routinely asks companies for paediatric development plans where appropriate. Pharmaceutical companies are required by the Licensing Authority to provide dosage information in the Summary of Product Characteristics when a Marketing Authorisation for their

  1135W
  medicinal product is granted or amended in the UK. This dosage information must be supported by the findings from clinical trials undertaken in the relevant adult or paediatric patient population.

  The safety of all medicines whether licensed, used outside the terms of their licence, or unlicensed, is monitored by the Medicines Control Agency and CSM. Various data sources are used for monitoring safety including: the UK Yellow Card Scheme for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions, suspected adverse drug reaction reports from abroad, the world-wide medical and scientific literature, clinical trial reports and periodic safety updates from manufacturers. The UK Yellow Card Scheme acts as an early warning system for drug safety hazards but is not a scheme for recording all suspected adverse reactions that occur in the UK. Data from the Yellow Card Scheme cannot, therefore, provide estimates of the incidence of adverse reactions, including fatal adverse reactions occurring in children. The CSM Working Group on Paediatric Medicines also advises on the collection of information on adverse reactions in relation to unlicensed use of medicines in children.

DEFENCE

  Army Strength
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the secretary of State for Defence what the strength and complement is of each regiment in the UK. [6953]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishments and actual strengths of each regiment based in the United Kingdom as at 1 September 2001 are shown in the table. The figures do not include the Royal Irish (Home Service), Special Forces or the Territorial Army.

  Unit

  Establishment1

  Actual strength2 as at 1 September 2001

  Household Cavalry Regt.

  463

  455

  Household Cavalry Mounted Regt.

  340

  327

  Queens Dragoon Guards

  398

  437

  Kings Royal Hussars

  497

  465

  Light Dragoons

  469

  434

  1 Royal Horse Artillery

  571

  509

  19 Regt. Royal Artillery

  341

  311

  40 Regt. Royal Artillery

  571

  552

  2 Signal Regt.

  3552

  376

  14 Signal Regt.

  718

  509

  21 Signal Regt.

  593

  380

  30 Signal Regt.

  4695

  612

  1 Grenadier Guards

  623

  586

  1 Coldstream Guards

  612

  613

  1 Scots Guard

  624

  594

  1 Welsh Guards

  670

  681

  1 Royal Scots

  610

  519

  1 Princess of Wales's Royal Regt.

  670

  618

  2 Princess of Wales's Royal Regt.

  687

  608

  2 Royal Regt. of Fusiliers

  620

  517

  1 Kings

  670

  583

  1 Royal Anglian

  667

  642

  2 Royal Anglian

  620

  599

  1 Devonshire and Dorset Regt.

  623

  539

  1 Light Infantry

  620

  609

  2 Light Infantry

  667

  643

  1 Prince of Wales Own

  620

  516

  1 Green Howards

  651

  554

  1 Royal Highland Fusiliers

  621

  548

  1 Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  620

  636

  1 Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  668

  655

  1 Royal Irish

  688

  5691

  1136W

  Unit

  Establishment1

  Actual strength2 as at 1 September 2001

  1 Royal Gloucestershire Berkshire and Wiltshire Regt.

  616

  555

  1 Worcestershire Forester Regt.

  610

  612

  1 Queens Lancashire Regt.

  667

  568

  1 Staffords

  670

  570

  1 Highlanders

  624

  504

  1 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  617

  584

  1 Parachute Regt.

  620

  602

  2 Parachute Regt.

  686

  6683

  3 Parachute Regt.

  667

  701

  2 Royal Gurkha Rifles

  706

  734

  1 Royal Green Jackets

  620

  588

  3 Regt. Army Air Corps

  307

  305

  4 Regt. Army Air Corps

  302

  317

  1 Establishment strength source is from Directorate of Communications Information Systems (Army)

  2 Actual strength source is from Defence Analytical Services Agency (Army)

  3 Includes Gurkha Sig. Sqn.

  4 Includes Gurkha Sig. Sqn.

  5 Includes Gurkha Reinforcement Company

  6 Includes Gurkha Reinforcement Company

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the type 45 destroyer will regularly operate a helicopter; [6979]

  (2) where the new type 45 destroyers will have their home port; [6981]

  (3) if the forward equipment programme contains full functioning for type 45 destroyers; [6985]

  (4) how many of the proposed type 45 destroyers will be available for operations, and excluding those in refit, at any one time; [6980]

  (5) what the in-service date is for the new type 45 destroyer; [6984]

  (6) what the planned complement is of (a) officers and (b) ratings on the new type 45 destroyer; and with which command system the type 45 destroyer will be equipped; [6978]

  (7) when the last of the new type 45 destroyers is expected to enter service with the Royal Navy. [6986]

  Dr. Moonie
  On current plans, we expect that the first type 45 destroyer will enter service with the Royal Navy in 2007 and that the last will enter service in 2014.

  We have yet to decide where the type 45 destroyers will have their base port. The decision is the subject of on-going work which will also take account of the base porting requirements of other vessels in the procurement programme such as the Future Aircraft Carrier and the Future Surface Combatant.

  The forward equipment programme includes funding for up to 12 type 45 destroyers. Capability upgrades included in the type 45 incremental acquisition plan will be funded within the type 45 programme budget. Other capability upgrades, including those to reflect future changes in defence requirements and technology advances, would be funded as appropriate.

  The currently planned complement of the type 45 is approximately 190 personnel, of whom around 20 will be officers and 170 other ranks. We are continuing to

  1137W
  examine the scope for driving down the complement even further and to introduce a more flexible and adaptable style of crewing. Accommodation standards will be significantly better than in earlier classes of warship.

  BAE Systems Electronics, the Prime Contractor, has selected a consortium comprising Alenia Marconi Systems and BAE Systems Combat and Radar Systems to develop and manufacture a Command System, known as the Combat Management System, specifically for the type 45.

  Assuming a class of 12 type 45s, we expect that nine or 10 ships would, on average, be available at any one time to the Commander-in-Chief Fleet for tasking, while two or three would be undergoing maintenance, including one or two in refit.

  In most operations we currently expect to have a Lynx helicopter embarked on the type 45 destroyer. The type 45 will also be interoperable with the Merlin helicopter. The type 45 destroyer will be a versatile platform, able to operate a variety of other helicopters; the ship's large flight deck can take helicopters up to and including Chinook size.

  NATO
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support the Government are providing to those countries seeking to join NATO in building up their armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [8031]

  Mr. Hoon
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we support the further enlargement of NATO when the political and military conditions agreed at the 1997 Madrid and 1999 Washington Summits are met. To support this process, we are assisting aspirants with their preparations through the Membership Action Plan, which was launched at the 1999 Washington Summit. The main objectives are to promote defence reform and restructuring within a democratic context and to support the development of flexible, modern armed forces capable of contributing to peace-keeping operations. Assistance takes many forms including: English language training to support interoperability; the secondment of military and civilian advisers to aspirant countries; the provision of a wide range of training opportunities including Non-Commissioned Officer training at the permanent British Military Advisory and Training Team based in the Czech Republic; exercise opportunities in the UK and in aspirant countries; seminars on specialist subjects; and high-level visits.

  Sustained Hypersonic Flight Experiment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Sustained Hypersonic Flight Experiment programme is expected to cost; for how many years the programme is projected to last; and if he will make a statement. [7337]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Sustained Hypersonic Flight Experiment is an experimental programme with the primary aim of obtaining vital engineering data to allow the Ministry of Defence to determine the credibility and risk levels associated with the development and future possible procurement of hypersonic cruise missiles.
  1138W
  The programme is expected to last for six years. The first year is a preliminary study costing £172,000. The cost to MOD for the following five years is expected to be approximately £1 million per annum.

  The programme will be reviewed at the end of the first year and again at the end of the third year to ensure its aims remain viable and that the project has a manageable level of technical risk before continuation funding is released.

  An important part of the preliminary study phase is to seek international collaborative partners to increase the overall value of this research programme to MOD.

  Small Arms
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which countries the UK has exported small arms; how much revenue was generated from such sales in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [7338]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls (Part III) provide details of the number of weapons and small arms exported, by country. Information on the total value of guns, small arms and parts exported in each of the last five years has been published in the Ministry of Defence publication "UK Defence Statistics 2001" (Table 1.13), which is available in the Library of the House. In both cases the definition, which is based on Customs Tariff codes, includes large as well as small calibre weapons.

  The UK is not a major exporter of small arms. It is Government policy that small arms which are declared surplus by the Ministry of Defence—other than automatic weapons which are routinely destroyed—are made available only to Governments, for use by acceptable military, paramilitary and police organisations, either directly or through duly licensed entities authorised to procure weapons.

  Long Range Strike Weapons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will increase spending on long range strike weapons; and if he will make a statement. [8032]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK invests a significant amount of money in its long range strike weapons capability. The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile has already demonstrated its worth in Kosovo and the current operation against international terrorism; the Tornado GR1 to GR4 conversion is proceeding well, with upgraded aircraft now in service; new GPS Interim Precision Guided Bombs are due to enter service at the end of this month; and we are planning to take delivery of the Stormshadow conventional air launched stand off missile next year.

  UK's requirements for long range deep strike weapons are, however, kept under constant review. Decisions on whether there is a need for increased spending will be taken as and when gaps in the UK's existing capability are identified.

  We are also currently reviewing our future requirements for long range strike weapons as part of the Future Offensive Air Capability Study. This study is examining the deep strike capability that the UK will need

  1139W
  in the 2015–20 timeframe, and will inform decisions on a number of equipment projects, including the Future Offensive Air System.

  Meteor Air-to-Air Missile
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected cost is of his Department's collaborative effort to develop, produce, and support the Meteor Beyond-Visual-Range-Air-to-Air Missile; how much of this development will be carried in the UK; which UK companies are involved in this project; and if he will make a statement. [7323]

  Dr. Moonie
  To the UK, the whole life cost of the Meteor missile will be in the region of £1.5 billion. This figure includes the cost of development, production and in-service support. Some 35 per cent. of the work undertaken during the development phase will be carried out in the UK, and matches the UK's financial contribution to that phase.

  Matra BAE Dynamics (UK) (MBD) will be the prime contractor for the Meteor programme with Alenia Marconi Systems, Royal Ordnance, Roband, Fairey Hydraulics, BAE Systems—Systems and Sensors Division, and Missile and Space Batteries acting as first level UK sub-contractors.

  Subject to conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding with all of our partner nations, and negotiation of satisfactory contractual terms and conditions with MBD, we hope to be able to place a demonstration and manufacture contract for Meteor by the end of this year.

  Ministerial Visits
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in his Department in each year since May 1997, indicating(a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying Ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if he will make a statement; [6939]

  (2) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in his Department for official overseas visits; what the (a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [6940]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 823W, to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish an annual report on(a) future
  1140W
  DU test firing proposals and (b) environmental testing results from the previous 12 months at the DERA testing facility at Dundrennan, Kirkcudbrightshire. [6506]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under current practice, reports on annual monitoring surveys of the marine and terrestrial environment are provided to Dumfries and Galloway Council, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and placed in the Library of the House. On 28 March 2001, the Ministry of Defence produced reports containing results from the 1999 marine and terrestrial environment monitoring surveys—copies are held in the Library of the House under reference DEP01–872. Reports for the 2000 monitoring surveys are being prepared and will be published shortly. This practice will continue. In addition to the routine marine and terrestrial environmental surveys, a more general survey to try to find any previously undetected depleted uranium (DU) fragments is currently being conducted at the range and results will be published next year.

  MOD has no plans to produce an annual report outlining future DU firing at the Kirkcudbright Training Area range. Further firings may be required while the ammunition remains in service, and I will publicise the details when plans are agreed.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected cost is of building the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers; where the assembly plant is; and if he will make a statement. [7324]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers will be built at an estimated cost of up to £2.9 billion. The vessels will be built in the UK and no decisions have been made on construction or assembly sites.

  Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the upgrade of the British Army's Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter is projected to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [7317]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter is not an upgrade programme but will replace the capability provided by the Army Lynx Mks 7 and 9. It is planned to enter service from the middle of this decade and to have replaced the current Lynx by the early years of the next.

  Weapon Modification Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies bidded for the individual weapon and light support weapon modification programme; and if he will make a statement. [7320]

  Dr. Moonie
  The modification programme for the SA80 Weapon System is being undertaken by Heckler & Koch GmbH, Oberndorf, Germany. H&K are wholly owned by a British company, BAE Systems Royal Ordnance (Weapons and Munitions). No other companies were invited to bid for the programme as H&K are the Design Authority for the modifications.
  1141W
  The contract for up to 200,000 weapons is on schedule with some 10,000 modified weapons available in the UK for issue to the armed services.

  A400M Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs Airbus UK's wing design development role in the A400M project is expected to create; and if he will make a statement. [7321]

  Dr. Moonie
  Airbus UK have estimated that work associated with A400M wing design and manufacture will create or secure over 2,500 long-term high-skill jobs. They have also calculated that indirect employment could bring this figure up to 7,500. The proportion of these jobs attributable specifically to the design development role has not been disclosed.

  Although there is no direct relationship between offtake and workshare, we are confident that the number of jobs estimated by Airbus UK is commensurate with our investment in this programme.

  Ordnance Board Project
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the Ordnance Board report Board Project G/220A dated 23 February 1982. [7114]

  Dr. Moonie
  The document is currently withheld under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  A review is being conducted to determine whether some or all of the information can be released into the public domain.

  I will write to my hon. Friend when this review is complete, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Wessex Helicopter
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the job losses at RAF Shrewsbury in connection with work on the Wessex helicopter. [7136]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Wessex servicing work at RAF Shawbury, new Shrewsbury, is to come to an end due to the withdrawal of the Wessex helicopter from service.

  The helicopter maintenance personnel that undertake this work are employed by FB Heliservices Limited.

  FB Heliservices advise that as a result of the end of the Wessex element of the RAF Shawbury maintenance contact they are facing a redundancy situation for up to 39 employees. The company has advised us that it is actively pursuing alternative employment for the staff involved and is in consultation with both the recognised Trade Unions and individual employees. As part of its efforts to find alternative work, the company has made a proposal to place some other Ministry of Defence helicopter servicing work at RAF Shawbury. This proposal is being considered.

  Aircraft Manufacture
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's ability to continue to manufacture aircraft. [6505]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK aerospace industry is involved in a number of current and future military aircraft projects such as Eurofighter, A400M and the US Joint Strike Fighter programme. This demonstrates the UK's continuing technical and engineering ability to play a major role in the manufacture of military aircraft.

  Future Offensive Aircraft Capability
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to approve the development of the Future Offensive Aircraft Capability. [6504]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Future Offensive Air Capability study is an Operational Analysis-based study examining the deep strike capability that the UK will need in the 2015–20 timeframe. It will inform decisions that we expect to take in the next two to three years on a number of equipment projects, including for the Future Offensive Air System project.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies are developing technology capable of integrating the US Navy's co-operative engagement capability into the UK Royal Navy's surface fleet; what the projected cost of this system is; and if he will make a statement. [7319]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 16 October 2001:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning integration of the US Navy's Co-operative Engagement Capability into the Royal Navy's surface fleet. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I refer you to the answer given on 25 July 2000 (official record col 542).
  Assessment studies to fit the Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) to Type 23 Frigates are being undertaken by Lockheed Martin UK Integrated Systems and Raytheon Systems Limited, with each company being supported by a number of potential sub-contractors. A competition has been conducted between them for the second phase of assessment work. Contract award is forecast for the first half of 2002.
  A separate package of work, to assess fitting the capability to the Type 45 destroyer, is being undertaken by BAE Systems Electronics Limited, the Type 45 Prime Contractor.
  The estimated procurement cost of integrating CEC into Type 23 and Type 45 is £255M and the latest estimate of the whole life cost is £415M. Both figures are at 2001 outturn prices. I regret that the figure of £250M for whole life costs, given in the answer of 25 July 2000, related to support costs alone and was intended to be additional to the quoted procurement costs. The correct whole life cost estimate at that time was therefore £424M.
  The programme is still at an early stage; costs, performance and timing will be refined before the main investment decision at Main Gate.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Speakers' Corner
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received concerning the impact of pop concerts on activities at Speakers' Corner. [6061]

  Tessa Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, William Weston. Mr. Weston wrote to the hon. Member in July.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Peter Ainsworth, dated July 2001:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of state for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about what representations have been received concerning the impact of pop concerts on activities at Speakers' Corner I regret that it was not possible to answer your question before the Summer recess. However, the information you requested is as follows.
  I received an email on 19 July from Heiko Khoo of the Speakers' Corner Association who believes that the right to free speech at Speakers' Corner, enshrined in the 1872 Parks and Gardens Act, is encroached by the arrangements made to facilitate large concerts on the adjacent Parade Ground. Mr Khoo questioned the Agency's right to make any restrictions on access to the area, and asked why such concerts could not be held in one of the of other Royal Parks instead.

  Football Fixtures
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received calling for international football fixtures taking place in England to continue moving between major premiership venues. [7224]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The Department has received no representations calling for England home international football fixtures to continue moving between major premiership venues. We have had a number of representations about the use of the national stadium, and a small number of representations about the use of a specific ground for the FA cup semi-final.

  British-made Films
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many British-made films have been made as part of European co-productions in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [8056]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of films made under the UK's European co-production treaties, and the Council of Europe's convention
  on cinematographic co-production, is as follows:

  Number

  1996

  12

  1997

  7

  1998

  13

  1999

  10

  2000

  21

  2001 (to August)

  24

  Ministerial Visits
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will list all official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in her Department in each year since May 1997, indicating(a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying Ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if she will make a statement; [6887]

  (2) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in her Department for official overseas visits; what the (a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if she will make a statement. [6888]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 823W.

  World Athletic Championships
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if it is Government policy to underwrite the 2005 world athletics championships; [7858]

  (2) if it is Government policy that Sheffield city council should underwrite the 2005 world athletics championships. [7860]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government have previously made it clear that in view of the size and importance of the IAAF world athletics championships, they would ensure that the underwriting of the event is resolved. The Government will consider this issue again once the decision of the IAAF council meeting in late November has decided whether to accept our proposal of Sheffield as the venue for the 2005 championships.

  Lottery Proceeds
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the total grants paid by each organisation responsible for allocating lottery proceeds, broken down by county in both absolute terms and pounds per thousand population. [7502]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information held on lottery award proceeds is not broken down by county, but is available by local authority area. I will place copies of the information requested in the Libraries of both Houses.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she intends to undertake a review of English Heritage. [8270]

  Tessa Jowell
  As part of the Department's programme of quinquennial reviews of its public bodies, my right hon.
  1145W
  Friend the Minister for the Arts is today announcing that WALES the Government will shortly start a review of English Heritage.

  The review will include an evaluation of the role and functions of English Heritage and how those functions can best be carried out, and a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the way in which it delivers services to its users. The review will include a public consultation exercise. A copy of the consultation paper can be found on DCM's website, www.culture.gov.uk. under "heritage, libraries & museums"; "historic environment".

  We estimate that the review will be completed by next summer. A copy of the announcement has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Grade

  Number working mainly in London

  Percentage

  Number working mainly in Wales

  Percentage

  Senior Civil Service (SCS)

  1

  100

  0

  0

  Band G (formerly Grade 6)

  1

  50

  1

  50

  Band F (formerly Grade 7)

  5

  100

  0

  0

  Band E (formerly SEO)

  1

  1

  50

  50

  Band D (formerly HEO)

  9

  82

  2

  18

  Band C (formerly EO)

  10

  83

  2

  17

  Band B (formerly AO)

  10

  83

  2

  17

  Band A (formerly AA)

  3

  100

  0

  0

  Totals

  40

  83

  8

  17

  Pay depends on the individual's permanent base rather than the location of their current post. Present scales are:

  £

  Permanently based

  in London

  1Elsewhere

  SCS

  Within the range 55,000–60,000

  Band G

  41,906–58,705

  37,832–52,965

  Band F

  34,542–48,160

  30,792–43,109

  Band E

  26,855–37,207

  23,481–32,873

  Band D

  21,042–28,942

  17,964–25,149

  Band C

  16,293–22,736

  13,481–18,874

  Band B

  13,757–17,609

  10,589–14,084

  Band A

  12,175–14,850

  9.024–11,551

  1 These staff ordinarily receive a 10 per cent. recruitment and retention allowance while working in London.

  Departmental Spending
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total amount of spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total spending this constitutes; and if he will make a statement. [6815]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The net operating cost of the Wales Office in 2000–01 was £7,121 million. Other than the running costs of my Department in Whitehall, this was all spent in Wales, predominantly by way of grant to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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

WALES

  Civil Servants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many and what proportion of each civil service grade in his Department is located in each region and nation of the UK; what the average salary is for each grade; and if he will make a statement; [6814]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of staff employed by his Department by region and nation of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6810]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  At October 2001, my Department has a complement of 48 posts as follows:

  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. [6894]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office gave on 15 October 2001,Official Report, Columns 1009–12W.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in his Department for official overseas visits; what the(a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [6896]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Records are not held separately for expenditure by the former Welsh Office on overseas travel. Since the Wales Office was established on 1 July 1999, Ministers have not used any non-commercial flights for official overseas visits.

  Departmental Spending (Staff)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate total staff costs for his Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6811]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The staff costs of my Department in 2000–01 were £1,415,000. No geographical breakdown is available. The Wales Office has no agencies.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total amount of business rates collected in Wales in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [7697]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total amount of revenue raised in Wales from the business rate between 1996–97 and 1998–99 was as follows:

  Year

  —

  1996–97

  427,156,005

  1997–98

  460,306,025

  1998–99

  464,847,538

  Since 1 July 1999, this has been a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's annual report for 2000–01 will be published. [8243]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Probation Board's annual report for 2000–01 was published on 16 October 2001.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Electoral Research Project
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the results of the electoral research project recently commissioned on the district council and parliamentary elections which were held in Northern Ireland. [8244]

  Mr. Browne
  I have today placed copies of the electoral research report in both Libraries of the House.

  Oversight Commissioner
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the latest report received from the Oversight Commissioner. [8245]

  Jane Kennedy
  In accordance with section 68(4)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, I have today laid a copy of the Oversight Commissioner's second statutory report for the year 2001 in both Houses.

  Northern Ireland Policing Board
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board; and if he will publish the names of those bodies consulted by him under the provisions of Schedule 1 Part 111 paragraph 8(2)(c) to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. [8246]
  1148W
  Jane Kennedy
  On 29 September my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the appointment of the following nine independent members:

  Denis Bradley

  Viscount Brookeborough

  Brian Dougherty

  Barry Gilligan

  Tom Kelly

  Pauline McCabe

  Rosaleen Moore

  Professor Desmond Rea

  Suneil Sharma.

  The 10 members nominated by the political parties, drawn from the Assembly are:

  Alex Attwood MLA

  Joe Byrne MLA

  Fred Cobain MLA

  Ivan Davis MLA

  William Hay MLA

  Lord Kilclooney MLA

  James Leslie MLA

  Eddie McGrady MP MLA

  Ian Paisley Junior MLA

  Sammy Wilson MLA.

  The Secretary of State appointed Professor Rea to serve as Chairman and Mr. Denis Bradley to serve as Vice Chairman. A copy of the announcement of 29 September has been placed in the Library of the House.

  In line with the requirements of Schedule 1 Part III paragraph 8(2)(c) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the Secretary of State wrote to the following individuals and bodies at the outset of the process:

  The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

  The Chief Police Officers' Staff Association

  The Church of Ireland

  The Democratic Unionist Party

  The Equality Commission

  The Green Party

  The Human Rights Commission

  The Labour Party

  The Methodist Church in Ireland

  The Northern Ireland Conservative Party

  The Northern Ireland Unionist Party

  The Northern Ireland Women's Coalition

  The Oversight Commissioner

  The Police Federation for Northern Ireland

  The Presbyterian Church in Ireland

  The Progressive Unionist Party

  The Roman Catholic Church

  Sinn Fein

  The Social Democratic and Labour Party

  The Superintendents' Association for Northern Ireland

  The Ulster Democratic Party

  The Ulster Unionist Party

  The United Kingdom Unionist Party

  The United Unionist Assembly Party

  The Workers' Party.

  1149W
  In addition, my right hon. Friend also consulted the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and the 26 district councils. Officials consulted the Commissioner for Public Appointments; approximately 900 other organisations and community groups were also approached by PricewaterhouseCoopers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Regional/Minority Languages Charter
  Mr. Mudie:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the appointment will be made of the UK member to the Committee of Experts for the Council of Europe European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [8267]

  Mr. MacShane:
  I am pleased to announce that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe elected on 4 October Emyr Lewis as the UK member to the Committee of Experts for the Charter. The Committee of Experts acts as a monitoring mechanism examining the periodical reports submitted by Parties on compliance with the Charter. Emyr Lewis is a fluent Welsh speaker, whose legal expertise and experience of minority language issues make him an ideal representative for the UK on this Committee.

  G8 Summit, Genoa
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the aftermath of the G8 summit held in Genoa on 20 July, consular officials from other EU countries were able to gain access to their detained nationals earlier than British consular officials. [8268]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We understand that no other EU state was granted access to their detained nationals ahead of British consular officials. However, detainees were held in several widespread locations, so it is impossible to confirm definitively which nationals were seen first on Wednesday 25 July, when access was finally granted. Our Consul visited one detainee in hospital as early as Sunday 22 July. British consular officials had visited all of our detainees ahead of most other EU states. American officials were the first to gain access to their nationals in the detention centres.

  Throughout the night of Wednesday 25 July, when the detainees were awaiting deportation at the airport, British consular officials provided support to British nationals and to many foreigners, including those from other EU countries, in the absence of their own consular representatives.

  United Nations Subscriptions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United States' paying its United Nations subscriptions. [7301]

  Peter Hain
  The payment of United Nations contributions is the responsibility of individual UN member states. However, we understand that the US 1150W
  Congress has recently agreed to release the second tranche of a US arrears package, worth $582 million. We welcome the forthcoming payment of these funds.

  UN Resolution 1373
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UN Resolution 1373 (2001). [7829]

  Peter Hain
  UN Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), adopted on 28 September, is the first resolution to impose obligations on all states to respond to the global terrorist threat. It focuses on two key areas: suppressing the financing of terrorism and denying terrorists a safe haven from which to operate. The United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the United Nations has been appointed Chairman of the Security Council committee that will monitor the implementation of this Resolution.

  The United Kingdom is obliged to implement immediately the mandatory provisions of the resolution. The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001, the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001, the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) (Isle of Man) Order 2001 and the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) (Channel Islands) Order 2001 were adopted by the Privy Council on 9 October 2001 and came into force on 10 October 2001. They will implement the mandatory provisions on terrorist financing in the United Kingdom, the Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies.

  The orders have been made under section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946. They implement paragraph 1(c) and (d) of the resolution by restricting the making available of any funds or financial services to terrorists and providing powers to freeze accounts of suspected terrorists. Paragraph 1(b) on criminalising fundraising for terrorist purposes can be implemented through the Terrorism Act 2000 in the United Kingdom. However, a specific provision on fundraising is included in the Overseas Territories, Isle of Man and Channel Islands Orders. Copies of all four orders have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  We are also considering urgently what further domestic legislation may be required to take action against terrorism in line with Security Council resolution 1373 (2001).

  Civil Service
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what proportion of each civil service grade in his Department is located in each region and nation of the UK, what the average salary is for each grade; and if he will make a statement. [6820]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) employs staff in three of the Regions in England: London, Croydon in South East Region and at Milton Keynes in Eastern Region.

  The number of staff by grade at each location and the percentage of the total staff are shown in the table. The FCO has recently completed its own grading structure and the grades shown are the accepted Civil Service Equivalents.
  1151W

  Grade

  London

  (%)

  Eastern

  (%)

  South East

  (%)

  Senior Grade

  29

  93.5

  1

  3.2

  1

  3.2

  Senior Manager

  75

  89.3

  6

  7.1

  3

  3.6

  Grade 6

  91

  77.1

  10

  8.5

  17

  14.4

  Grade 7

  225

  74.2

  39

  12.9

  39

  12.9

  SEO

  142

  52.8

  108

  40.1

  19

  7.1

  HEO

  436

  66.9

  202

  30.9

  14

  2.1

  EO

  433

  75.8

  120

  21.0

  18

  3.2

  AO

  541

  73.2

  174

  23.5

  24

  3.2

  AA

  259

  81.7

  56

  17.8

  1

  0.5

  The average salaries paid to the staff, including payments towards national insurance and superannuation made by the FCO on behalf of staff are:

  £

  Grade

  London

  Average salary Outside London

  Senior Grade

  111,000

  111,000

  Senior Manager

  75,000

  75,000

  Grade 7

  60,990

  52,850

  Grade 6

  49,840

  44,740

  SEO

  37,030

  37,600

  HEO

  30,780

  31,420

  EO

  24,460

  22,660

  AO

  20,630

  19,005

  AA

  15,860

  14,715

  Ministerial Travel
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in his Department for official overseas visits; what the(a) destination (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if he will make a statement; [6936]

  (2) if he will list all official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in his Department in each year since May 1997, indicating (a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if he will make a statement. [6935]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 823W.

  Departmental Spending
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total amount of spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total spending this constitutes; and it he will make a statement. [6821]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 854–56W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sellafield (MOX Facility)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on security arrangements at the MOX facility at Sellafield. [7883]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]Security at the Sellafield MOX plant complies fully with the standards set by the Director for Civil Nuclear Security, the Government's security Regulator. The Office for Civil Nuclear Security has taken account of the events in the United States of America on 11 September and continues to be satisfied that the security arrangements to be applied by BNFL will provide effective security once the plant starts to operate.

  Renewable Energy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is her policy to allow funds available to support renewable energy to be used towards projects involving energy from waste plants. [7086]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Renewables Obligation Statutory Consultation sets out our proposals for support for renewable sources of energy and clarifies the extent to which electricity generated by energy from waste plants might qualify. Copies of this will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. This document is also available at:"http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/consultations.htm" and any further responses are now urgently invited as the closing date was 12 October 2001.

  In collaboration with the Department of the Environment Transport and Regions (DETR), now the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), we have supported the publication of "Household Waste Management in the UK, Some Examples of Good Practice". This publication illustrates how energy from waste projects can be part of an integrated approach to waste management. Copies of this guide can be ordered from: "nre-enquiries@aeat.co.uk" and copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of UK electricity was produced from renewable resources in the last 12 months; and what percentage of that was produced from(a) hydro#electricity, (b) wind, (c) combined heat and power schemes and (d) other; and if she will make a statement. [7361]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 2000, 2.8 per cent. of electricity generated in the UK came from renewable sources. Of that, 49 per cent. was produced from hydro-electricity, 9 per cent. was from wind, and 42 per cent. from other sources (mainly biofuels), within which 4 per cent. was generated in combined heat and power schemes.

  Through the Renewables Obligation, and through a package of additional support measures, the Government are creating a strong and growing demand for renewable energy worth over £1 billion by 2010. These measures will provide the right framework for the strong expansion we need in the renewable energy sector.
  1153W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent in each of the last five years by her Department into the investigation of renewable energy resources. [7348]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department of Trade and Industry attaches great importance to renewable energy and has set ambitious targets. The new Renewables Obligation will create a long-term market for renewables which will be worth over £1 billion per year by 2010. The Obligation will be the main mechanism by which we will meet our renewables targets and will be underpinned by direct Government funding worth over £260 million between 2001 and 2004. This will include an extensive capital grants programme for the early development of offshore wind and energy crops, the initial stage of a major photovoltaics demonstration programme and a boost for research and development.

  The Department funds research into renewable energy resources both through its own Sustainable Energy Programme and through the Science Budget which supports the Research Councils. Spend over each of the last five years, and the budgets for this year and next, which allow for significant expansion, are set out in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  DTI Sustainable Energy Programme

  Research Councils

  1996–97

  16.3

  2.2

  1997–98

  13.0

  2.9

  1998–99

  11.3

  3.1

  1999–2000

  12.5

  2.4

  2000–01

  13.1

  2.8

  2001–02

  18.5

  5.0

  2002–03

  18.5

  5.1

  1 Budget

  In order to promote a strategic approach to renewable energy planning from the regional level downwards, the Government in February 2000 initiated work on regional assessments and targets for renewable energy provision based upon, and where necessary updating, existing resource studies. Most of these assessments are now complete, with the remainder to be completed by the end of 2001. Spend on these studies, which is included in the wider figures above for the Sustainable Energy Programme, was £0.3 million in 2000–01 and is expected to be £0.25 million in 2001–02.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to support the construction of renewable energy sources rather than nuclear power stations; if she will announce a moratorium on nuclear power station construction in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6757]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are putting in hand a range of measures to support renewable energy, including a Renewables Obligation on electricity suppliers, exemption from the climate change levy and grant funding in excess of £260 million over the next three years.

  The Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit is also currently carrying out an energy review and will report to the Prime Minister by the end of the year. The aim of the review is to set out the objectives of energy
  1154W
  policy and to ensure that current policy commitments are consistent with longer-term goals. The review is considering all sources of energy including renewables and nuclear as well as the enhancement of energy efficiency. At this stage it is too early to draw any conclusions.

  Civil Service (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of her Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7229]

  Ms Hewitt
  The normal retirement age for staff in my Department, its executive agencies and, subject to the exceptions below, public sector bodies which it sponsors, is 60 for staff at range 5 (formerly Executive Officer level) and above and 65 for staff below this level.

  In the Research Councils, the normal retirement age is 60 for all staff with the exception of the Medical Research Council where it is 65. The Design Council does not have a compulsory retirement age for its staff. In Regional Development Agencies the normal retirement age is 65 with the exception of the East of England Development Agency and the South West Regional Development Agency where it is 60. However, for those RDA staff who are members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, the normal retirement age is 60.

  Export Control Bill
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what secondary legislation the Government plan to introduce under the Export Control Bill; if the Government will hold a public consultation on that legislation; and if she will make a statement. [8317]

  Nigel Griffiths
  My Department and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport have made available to Parliament dummy orders, that is drafts of possible orders using the powers in the Bill as they currently stand. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. They are also available from my Department's library and on our website (www.dti.gov.uk/export.control). These dummy orders have been provided to assist Parliament in its scrutiny of the Bill by providing a clear indication of how the Government would propose to use the powers that would be conferred by the Bill.

  We intend, however, to hold a full public consultation on drafts of the orders to be made following enactment of the Bill. This public consultation, which we currently expect to hold in the spring, will provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the details of secondary legislation that the Government propose to introduce under the Bill. We currently expect the dummy orders to be the basis for preparation of these draft orders for full public consultation.

  The provisions in the dummy orders are based both on existing secondary export control legislation, consolidated and rationalised where appropriate, and on the Government's proposals for new controls to be introduced under the Bill. Proposals for new controls were set out in the Consultation Document on the Draft Bill (Cm 5091) published in March 2001.
  1155W
  The Consultation Document sought views on options for certain aspects of the new controls on technical assistance and trafficking and brokering. The provisions of the dummy orders reflect decisions taken on these options in the light of the consultation results. Views were sought on whether controls on the provision of technical assistance to embargoed destinations should be introduced on a unilateral basis. The Government have concluded that such unilateral action is unlikely to be effective but we will use the powers in the Bill to implement requirements in international embargoes to impose controls on technical assistance. This will enable a higher maximum penalty to apply. In addition, as explained in the Consultation Document, the Government propose to introduce controls on the provision of technical assistance to weapons of mass destruction and related missile programmes.

  The Consultation Document proposed the introduction of controls on trafficking and brokering to embargoed destinations, of equipment whose export we have banned because of evidence of its use in torture and of long-range missiles that would apply to the activities of United Kingdom persons overseas as well as to activities carried out in the United Kingdom. The Consultation Document also set out proposals for additional controls on trafficking and brokering. Views were sought on whether these additional controls should apply to all equipment on the "Military List" (the "Military List" is contained in existing export control legislation) or just to weapons, ammunition and certain other key military or paramilitary items. Views were also sought on whether these additional controls should apply to the activities of United Kingdom persons carrying out activities wholly abroad as well as to activities taking place in the United Kingdom. The Government have concluded, in the light of the consultation held, that these additional controls should apply to all equipment on the "Military List" and to activities, any part of which takes place in the United Kingdom, but not to the activities of United Kingdom nationals carried out wholly abroad. The Government will, however, as noted above, apply controls on trafficking and brokering by United Kingdom persons overseas of equipment used in torture and long-range missiles and trafficking and brokering by such persons to embargoed destinations. The Government will press for international embargoes to be imposed on countries in conflict.

  Finally, the Consultation Document also sought views on proposals to replicate the current licensing regime for exports of objects of cultural interest. In the light of responses which broadly welcomed these proposals, the dummy order on the export of objects of cultural interest reflects the proposals contained in the Consultation Document.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage the generation of electricity using wind power. [7326]

  Mr. Wilson
  The wind energy industry will benefit substantially from the introduction of the Renewables Obligation which will provide a long-term market for renewable energy for the next 25 years. This market will be worth over £1 billion per year by 2010 and suppliers 1156W
  are expected to meet a significant proportion of their obligations from wind energy. Existing contracts made under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) arrangements will be honoured, and we propose to table an Order before the end of 2001 to allow locational flexibility for these projects.

  Wind energy also benefits from exemption from the Climate Change Levy.

  By promoting the development of regional plans for renewable energy, and through the proposed update of National Planning Policy Guidance Note on Renewable Energy (PPG22), the Government are seeking to ensure that local planning decisions on proposed wind energy projects are taken in the context of wider policy objectives.

  At least £49 million has already been announced for a DTI and New Opportunities Fund capital grants scheme for offshore wind energy projects. The offshore wind industry could also potentially benefit from forthcoming decisions on the extra £100 million for renewable energy pledged by the Prime Minister earlier in the year.

  We have consulted extensively with the wind industry on the design of the capital grants scheme and intend to launch the scheme shortly. We have also consulted on our proposals for a "one-stop shop" to help developers seeking to obtain the necessary consents for offshore projects.

  Wind energy projects are also eligible to apply for support under the Department's Sustainable Energy programme, which will provide funding for renewables research and development of £55 million in total over this and the next two financial years.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money the Government plan to spend on promoting the generation of electricity in the year 2002–03. [7328]

  Mr. Wilson
  Government action to promote the generation of electricity is directed to the sustainable energy sector. Subject to market circumstances, support from the Renewables Obligation and Scottish Obligation could be worth up to £282 million in 2002–03, and continuing support for the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) and its Scottish equivalent up to £167 million.

  The Government's proposed budget for 2002–03 for our sustainable energy research and development programme is £18.5 million.

  A proportion of direct Government spending on capital grants and other support schemes for renewable energy will also occur in 2002–03. The cost of these schemes over a three-year period is expected to exceed £200 million.

  Exempting renewable energy from the Climate Change Levy will save the renewable energy industry an estimated £24 million in 2002–03.

  Electricity Trading
  Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government will take to ensure that the new electricity trading arrangements do not penalise Combined heat and power and renewable generators. [7056]

  Mr. Wilson
  In advance of going live, a number of smaller generators as well as the Combined Heat and Power Association (CHPA) and the Association of Electricity Producers (AEP) expressed concern that the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) would severely disadvantage them. In view of this, on 21 February, the then Minister for Energy, asked Ofgem to undertake a review of the impact of NETA on smaller generators based on its first two months of live operation.

  On 31 August, Ofgem published their report to the DTI on the "Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators", as well as a report "The New Electricity Trading Arrangements—Review of the First Three Months".

  The Government believe that the key findings in Ofgem's report on the first three months of NETA are encouraging and indicate that, overall, NETA has created a more competitive market.

  The Government have reviewed and considered Ofgem's reports, as well as views put forward by industry, both in the course of Ofgem's review, and to DTI. In the light of these, I will be issuing a consultation document.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices closed in the Huntingdon constituency in each financial year since 1995–96. [6168]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that data on the post office network are not held on a parliamentary constituency basis.

  Sub-post Offices (Compensation)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans are(a) in place and (b) under consideration to compensate proprietors of sub-post offices whose businesses become unprofitable after withdrawal of benefit payments by cash. [6497]

  Mr. Alexander
  Benefit and pension recipients who wish to collect their benefits in cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so after the change in payment arrangements, beginning in April 2003, by means of Universal Banking Services.

  The Government have committed £270 million of support over the next three years to start the implementation of the Performance and Innovation Unit's recommendations, all of which the Government accepted, for modernisation of the post office network. The Government remain committed to maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices.

  Broadband Telecommunications
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set for the 1158W
  percentage of the UK population able to gain access to broadband telecommunications by the end of this decade. [6495]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to working to extend broadband networks across the UK. This commitment was backed up by the publication of an action plan 'UK online: the broadband future' which set out how the Government aim to facilitate the roll-out of broadband services across the country.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to extend broadband telecommunications to rural areas throughout the UK. [6496]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are working to ensure that broadband services are available in all parts of the country. To this end we are developing a strategy together with all interested parties. The £30 million fund for Regional Development Agencies and the devolved Administrations is focused on extending broadband networks to those who are not offered access by the market, including in rural areas. The Countryside Agency also included broadband access and demand in its "healthchecks" on 100 market towns, while the devolved Administrations are carrying forward their own work on broadband in rural areas with our support and assistance.

  In addition, we are examining the scope for aggregating public sector demand in order to speed up the roll-out of broadband services to individuals and businesses in rural and other areas that service providers currently see as uncommercial.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the likely impact of the European Commission's latest proposals on future PFI projects. [6616]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Commission's proposals for simplifying, clarifying and bringing up to date the EC procurement directives were tabled in July 2000. They are the subject of on-going discussions in the Council and the European Parliament. Real progress is being made and the Government consider it unlikely that the amended rules will have any adverse effects on the award of PFI contracts.

  Gas Imports
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many billion cubic metres of gas she expects to be imported by 2010; and if she will make a statement; [7360]

  (2) when she expects the UK to become a net importer of gas; and if she wall make a statement. [7359]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department makes and publishes projections of UK gas supply and demand, for example in 'Energy Projections for the UK' published in November 2000 and in the annual "Brown Book". In DTI's submission to the current Performance and Innovation Unit Energy Review, projections of supply and demand consistent with these publications were presented which suggest that the UK could become a net importer of gas on an annual basis by 2005 or soon thereafter. There is,
  1159W
  though, uncertainty on both the supply and demand projections, not least since both can be affected by changes in energy prices. Most outside commentators are also currently forecasting net imports from around 2005–06. At times of high demand in the winter, the UK is already a net importer of gas, as it was before 1997.

  Looking further ahead, to 2010, there is greater uncertainty, so it is possible only to speculate on a likely range of estimates for net imports in that year. Allowing for an effect on gas demand from the full Climate Change Programme announced in November 2000, and assuming production by then of at least some of the discovered gas reserves which are currently classified as possible and of some as-yet-undiscovered gas reserves, an import range of between 15 and 55 billion cubic metres is indicated.

  Gas Energy Provision
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the UK's energy she expects to be sourced from gas by 2020; and what by percentage the countries of origin of the gas will be. [7379]

  Mr. Wilson
  Future estimates of the proportion of gas in UK primary energy demand in 2020 are naturally subject to considerable uncertainty. My Department's paper, 'Energy Projections for the UK'1, suggests that under a number of assumptions, including possible future economic growth and fossil fuel prices, gas will supply a little under 50 per cent. of primary energy demand in 2020.

  It is anticipated that much of the UK's gas will, by then, be imported. With the commissioning of the Bacton-Zeebrugge interconnector in October 1998 and the opening of the Vesterled link with Norway in October 2001, the UK is an integral part of the European gas network. Further links are likely. Europe's indigenous production is expected to decline by 2020 but it is relatively well situated close to more than two thirds of the world's proven gas reserves. The UK's gas could come from a variety of sources with suppliers of pipeline gas likely to include Norway, Russia and countries in the Caspian Basin and North Africa. The share that comes from each in 2020 will be determined by commercial considerations and supply-demand pressures in Europe both before and at that time. It is also possible that the UK will again import Liquefied Natural Gas that could come from some of the above countries but also from more distant sources such as the Middle East, Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago.

  1 EP68 The Stationery Office and www.dti.gov.ukknergy/ep68final.pdf

  Gas Supplies
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to amend legislation to provide an incentive for(a) pipe laying and (b) gas supply companies to extend gas supplies to communities without a gas supply; [6255]

  (2) what steps he proposes to take to extend gas supplies to communities, which have no supply; and if he will make a statement. [6256]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The Utilities Act 2000 sought to increase competition in connections by removing the limits on gas transporters 1160W
  operating in their limited licence areas, with a view to stimulating competition between transporters, promoting extension of the network and reducing connection costs. In August 2001, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) consulted on a proposal to amend the Gas Connections Regulations to allow for a recovery period of twenty years rather than five. This would be expected to reduce the incentive for householders to hold back on connecting to the gas supply, and therefore to increase initial take-up.

  The Government's draft Fuel Poverty Strategy included a commitment to working with Ofgem to ensure that, wherever possible, the gas network provides the widest viable coverage and fullest viable capacity. A working group, whose membership includes representatives of Government, Ofgem, the industry and consumers, is taking this work forward with a view to producing an interim report this month. The Government will take a view on what action is appropriate once the group has reported.

  Intellectual Property Advisory Committee
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress she has made in appointing the new Intellectual Property Advisory Committee. [8318]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have appointed Mr. Ian Harvey, Chief Executive Officer of BTG plc, to chair the IP Advisory Committee. I have appointed the following as members of the Committee:Diana Adie, former head of IP at the BBC
  Professor Sue Birley, Director of Imperial College Entrepreneurship Centre
  Richard Gallafent, patent attorney
  Professor Paul Geroski, deputy-chair of the Competition Commission
  Mandy Haberman, businesswoman and inventor
  Roland Hill, consulting engineer, inventor and businessman
  Paul Johnston, IP Manager at ICI Paints and ICI Group Trade Mark Counsel
  Hilary Newiss, self-employed solicitor and IP consultant
  David Perkins, solicitor and head of IP Europe at Clifford Chance
  Tim Roberts, patent attorney, president of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, and former IP manager at Zeneca Seeds
  Dr Sandy Thomas, director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
  Professor David Vaver, director of Oxford University IP Research Centre.

  Further details are available at the committee's website http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/ipac and in the press release announcing the membership, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Low Pay Commission has been given its new terms of reference. [8319]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have confirmed the permanent status of the Low Pay Commission (LPC) and will be providing it with full terms of reference for its next report in due course. In preparation for that, and as suggested by the LPC in its third report (Vol II), the
  1161W
  Government wish the LPC to set up a programme of
  longer term, strategic and rigorous research to inform future work.

  In particular, the Government wish the LPC to commission research which will investigate the impact of the minimum wage, over time, on employment and joblessness levels of various age groups. The Government also wish the LPC to find out more about the effect of the minimum wage on the supply of, and demand for, work-based training, and on the link between the minimum wage, education, training and skills development more generally.

  The LPC has done a lot of useful work on the impact of the NMW on specific low paying sectors. The Government would like the LPC to use the longer timeframe now available to it to commission rolling research into the impact of the NMW, and the various increases to the rate, on business as a whole and on small businesses in particular, building on the work the LPC has already done on the various business strategies for coping with the minimum wage that have been adopted by such firms.

  Fuel Shortages
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what emergency measures have been put in place in the last 12 months to deal with fuel shortages brought about by industrial action. [7455]

  Mr. Wilson
  There have been no industrial disputes in the downstream oil sector in the past 12 months that have resulted in disruption to fuel supplies. The Energy Act 1976 confers powers which would allow the my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure the continuity of essential fuel supplies in the event of a major disruption.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of reserve petrol supplies since 11 September. [7456]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under legislation introduced after the oil crises of the 1970s, and the economic damage caused by the two oil price hikes, each European member state has an obligation to keep stocks of oil that can be made available in the event of any disruption to international oil supplies. As part of this obligation, the UK is required to hold stocks of oil products (including motor spirit) or crude oil equivalent equal to or above 67.5 days' worth of consumption at any one time. To ensure that the UK meets these obligations, my Department regularly monitors the levels of stocks of crude oil and oil products held in the UK. The latest data available are provisional data for stocks as at 31 August 2001, which show the UK as having 4.2 million tonnes of motor spirit (including a contribution from stocks of crude oil that will be refined into products), equal to 72 days' worth of consumption. This is considered to be more than adequate, especially given the level of our indigenous resources of crude oil, to meet the UK's needs or UK contribution to any international response to an oil supply shortage.

  Fishing (Iceland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requests she has made to the Icelandic 1162W
  authorities for information regarding UK fishing vessels that may be entitled to compensation as former Icelandic waters trawlermen; and if she will make a statement. [7071]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 599W.

  Mining Diseases
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-miners in the Elmet constituency have been compensated for(a) respiratory diseases and (b) white finger vibration (i) in full and (ii) in part; and how many are waiting for compensation. [7055]

  Mr. Wilson
  To date, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, advise me that, with regard to compensation for respiratory disease, there have been 485 claims registered in the Elmet constituency. 97 interim payments have been made and 53 claims have been settled in full.

  In relation to vibration white finger, VWF, 444 claims have been initiated. There have been 87 interim payments and 66 claims have been settled by payment.

  In total, the Department has paid out over £1.4 million in the Elmet constituency.

  Details of compensation paid by constituency will soon be available on "www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth".

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation have been made in respect of vibration white finger and chronic bronchitis and emphysema in(a) Nottinghamshire and (b) nationally; how many have been refused; how many have been settled; in how many cases interim payments have been made; and how many remain outstanding in each area since 1971. [7655]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]With respect to respiratory disease, the following progress has been made:

  Nottinghamshire

  Nationally

  Total number of claims

  20,706

  164,527

  Total settlements

  1,585

  14,965

  Number of interim payments

  3,679

  36,002

  Number of denied claims

  n/a

  3,456

  In Nottinghamshire, some 15,938 claimants are progressing to the full medical assessment and, to date, the Department has received 7,000 claims packs from solicitors.

  In relation to vibration white finger, VWF, the following progress has been made:

  Nottinghamshire

  Nationally

  Total number of claims

  22,377

  128,041

  Total settlements

  4,773

  29,300

  Number of interim payments

  6,642

  37,417

  Number of denied claims

  n/a

  5,917

  Further regional details are available on the Department's website www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.
  1163W
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation has been paid to claimants in(a) Nottinghamshire and (b) nationally in respect of (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger since 1971. [7656]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]With regard to compensation for respiratory disease, £20.8 million has been paid in Nottinghamshire. Nationally, £203.4 million has been paid.

  In relation to vibration white finger, VWF, £67.6 million has been paid in Nottinghamshire. Nationally, £368.3 million has been paid.

  Further regional details are available on the Department's website www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessments she has made of the likely growth in fossil fuel use in(a) the USA and (b) developing nations over the next 20 years; what impact such growth will have on targets set at Kyoto; and what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on the ratification of the Kyoto agreement by (i) EU member states, (ii) eastern European nations, (iii) Japan, (iv) Canada and (v) Russia. [6755]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has made no independent assessment of the likely growth in fossil fuel use over the next 20 years outside the UK. Assessments of future fossil and other energy uses are, however, undertaken by a number of organisations, including the International Energy Agency and the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. These organisations typically produce annual reports covering such work.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no discussions with her EU counterparts on the ratification of the Kyoto Agreement as that issue is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I understand that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol will be discussed at the Environment Council on 29 October.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on future nuclear reprocessing capacity in the United Kingdom; what estimate she has for the volume of nuclear(a) storage and (b) reprocessing capacity that will be required over the next 30 years; how much of this capacity is currently available; how much additional capacity by type she estimates will need to be built in the United Kingdom; what estimate she has made of the (i) cost of such additional capacity and (ii) the amount of non-UK nuclear waste that will be (A) reprocessed and (B) stored in the United Kingdom over the next 30 years; and if she will make a statement. [6758]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has made no estimate of storage and reprocessing capacity as Government policy is that the decision to reprocess spent nuclear fuel or to 1164W
  seek alternative spent fuel management options is a matter for the commercial judgment of its owners, subject to meeting the necessary regulatory requirements.

  Since 1976 reprocessing contracts with overseas customers have included a provision to return the resulting wastes back to the country of origin. Government policy remains that radioactive waste arising from overseas should not be stored in the UK. The amounts of overseas spent fuel reprocessed in the UK will depend on commercial arrangements between BNFL and its customers.

  Bilking
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with petrol companies on their contributions to the cost of prevention of bilking at petrol stations. [6301]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply as I have responsibility for Crime Reduction.

  We have not had direct discussion with petrol companies on their contributions to the cost of bilking at petrol stations, although officials have regular contact with the British Oil Industry Security Syndicate (BOSS) which is made up of representatives of petrol companies. BOSS has instigated the "Forecourt Watch" scheme which aims to reduce the types of crime that affect petrol station forecourts. There are 40 schemes currently operating across the United Kingdom and BOSS continues to develop new schemes in co-operation with local police services.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  A3 Hindhead Tunnel
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what implementation plan he has drawn up to(a) commence and (b) complete the A3 Hindhead tunnel; [7557]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy on the environmental and economic implications of the proposed tunnel at Hindhead on the A3; [6474]

  (3) what reports he has received from the Highways Agency concerning the A3 exhibition at Hindhead. [7556]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews to write to the right hon. Lady.

  Letter from David York to Virginia Bottomley, dated 16 October 2001:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A3 Hindhead Tunnel. I am replying since Tim Matthews is currently abroad on Highways Agency business.
  The environmental and economic implications of the proposed tunnel were assessed as part of the study completed earlier this year into possible charging for the tunnel. I attach a copy of the table summarising that assessment. As you will be aware, Ministers accepted the recommendations of the study and the scheme was added to the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements last Spring.

  1165W
  The exhibition last month to remind local people about the scheme details was extremely successful and we received a considerable amount of useful feedback. The comments are now being considered and will be taken into account as the detailed design for the scheme is prepared. Our next step will be to appoint a contractor, next Summer, early in the planning process to help with that detailed design work. That work should lead to the start of the statutory procedures in 2003–04.
  Subject to the outcome of those procedures, work could start on site in 2005–06 and take between three and four years to complete.

  A3 Hindhead—appraisal summary table January 2001

  Objective/Sub-objective/Qualitative impacts

  Quantitative measure

  Assessment

  ENVIRONMENT

  Noise

  With the Base Tunnel Option significant changes in traffic noise (3 dB1) predicted on some 35 km of the road network, in some cases including parts of Haslemere and Liphook as well as in Hindhead. The tunnel would reduce noise levels substantially for parts of Hindhead Common, but tranquillity on footpaths near the new road north of the tunnel would be lost

  Base Tunnel vs Do Min. in 2023 Properties benefiting by 3 Db1:675 Properties dis-benefiting by 3 dB:1151

  Net number of properties benefiting by 3 dB:5601

  Local Air Quality

  The assessment has been carried out for the road traffic model simulation area for links which would have a traffic flow of more than 5,000 veh/day (DETR, May 2000: Review and Assessment: Pollutant Specific Guidance, Part IV The Environment Act 1995, Local Air Quality Management LAQM.TG4(00))

  Properties where LAQ improves PM10 1,567 NO2 715 Properties where LAQ worsens PM10 801 NO2 652

  LAQ Index: PM10—249.7 NO2—2,702.9

  Greenhouse Gases

  The change in CO2 is calculated over the whole road traffic model area and would be roughly equivalent to 0.012 per cent. of the total emissions of CO2 by road transport in the UK in 1996

  n/a

  +3,575 CO2 tones/annum

  Landscape

  Slight beneficial impact on Surrey Hills AONB. Substantial benefits to landscape of the Common arising from inclusion of a bored tunnel and removal of the existing surface route would be, in part, off-set by substantial adverse effects outside tunnel at northern and southern ends of scheme

  n/a

  Slight beneficial

  Townscape

  Removal of congestion within Hindhead provides opportunity for townscape enhancement and redevelopment, including visitor 'gateway' to the Commons and Punch Bowl. These benefits would be off-set by adverse effect on southern approach to Hindhead; new route running parallel to existing A3 would create a wide road corridor with disturbance to existing mature properties

  Three residential and four non-residential properties would be demolished

  Moderate beneficial

  Heritage of Historic Resources

  No direct/indirect impacts on designated sites. Risk to unknown/undiscovered archaeology. Substantial benefit to historic landscape of the Common by removing existing surface route and re-establishing links with Punch Bowl, offset by adverse effects outside the tunnel

  n/a

  Slight beneficial

  Biodiversity

  No direct impact on the adjacent SSSIs/SPAs. Direct impact on areas of non-designated woodland and SNCI east of Hindhead, but avoiding main nature conservation interest. Beneficial indirect effects on Punch Bowl SSSI/SPA by removing existing surface route and reuniting commons

  n/a

  Intermediate positive

  Water Environment

  The scheme would cross two of the four streams within the corridor, one of which is of excellent quality (Begley) and the other (Nutcombe) of poor quality. Surface water measures would be needed to ensure there is no pollution risk. Existing data and boreholes indicate possible conflict between tunnel and ground water levels and underlying aquifer; without detailed modelling the impact cannot be determined, but there is a risk

  n/a

  (potentially) large adverse

  1166W
  Base Tunnel Option: (BTO) vs Do-Minimum
  Dual two-lane all-purpose bypass (6.5 km) incl. bored tunnel (1.7 km)
  Problems: substantial delays and journey time variability on the A3 due to the traffic signals at Hindhead, the single carriageway sections either side and nearby junctions and accesses, also causing substantial amounts of "rat running" on local roads. Traffic flow 27,000 veh/day (9 per cent. HGVs).
  Present Value Cost to Government: £75 million.
  1167W

  A3 Hindhead—appraisal summary table January 2001

  Objective/Sub-objective/Qualitative impacts

  Quantitative measure

  Assessment

  Physical Fitness

  Relatively few pedestrians currently cross the A3 in Hindhead (less than 200 a day). Reduced traffic severance in Hindhead resulting from the scheme may encourage more pedestrian and cyclist trips. Tunnel will reunite severed sections of the Common which is likely to encourage greater recreational use of the Common by pedestrians and cyclists. Dedicating existing sections of A3 to pedestrians and cyclists will also offer increased opportunities for walking and cycling

  No data available on number of pedestrians and cyclists who will walk/cycle for more than, or less than, the 30 minutes a day health threshold

  Slight beneficial

  Journey Ambience

  Large beneficial effect on driver stress. Large adverse effect on views from road. Slight beneficial effect with respect to traveller care (facilities) arising from the new dedicated footway/cycleway on sections of existing A3

  Over 25,000 road users a day affected

  Slight beneficial

  SAFETY

  Accidents

  Substantial reductions in numbers of accidents

  Accidents reduced by 27 in 2009 rising to 34 in 2038. Thirty-year reduction 919

  PVB £13 million 17 per cent, of PVC

  Security

  N/a

  n/a

  n/a

  ECONOMY

  Transport Economic Efficiency

  Positive NPV under both High and Low growth scenarios. Benefit/cost ratio higher than in the last study in the mid-1990s

  BCR 1.6

  Users: NPV £108 million Public providers: NPV £75 million Other Government: NPV £13 million

  Reliability

  Moderate reduction in travel time variability from relieving bottleneck; would be larger but for traffic attracted (back) into the A3 corridor. Low-moderate flow

  Current range of 12–32 minutes for peak journey on Liphook-Milford section of A3 would be reduced substantially

  Slight beneficial

  Wider Economic Impacts

  This sub-objective is targeted at designated regeneration areas. Nevertheless, it is relevant that South Hampshire may benefit substantially from the improved transport connection. Also, the blighted part of Hindhead should recover when relieved of major traffic flows

  n/a

  (potentially) moderate beneficial

  ACCESSIBILITY

  Option values

  Unlikely there would be substantial changes to the availability of transport services in the area

  n/a

  Severance

  Some relief from severance along the existing A3 from the signals (at A287) northwards, particularly around the Devil's Punch Bowl, and from the signals southwards to Crossways Road

  Moderate beneficial

  Access to the Transport System

  No change

  Neutral

  INTEGRATION

  Transport Interchange

  No change

  Neutral

  Land-Use Policy

  Across the relevant national, regional and local policies (transport, environment, landscape, nature conservation, agriculture, cultural heritage, general development and recreation, there would be equal numbers of policies affected beneficially and adversely. There would, however, be more large positive effects than negative ones, and more of the more important policies would be affected positively. The two policies that would be affected most positively are: to provide an efficient and effective road system and to reduce congestion; and to conserve and enhance biodiversity. On balance the effect would be beneficial

  Sixteen policies would benefit; 16 policies would be adversely affected; five policies where effects would be neutral. All four most important policies would benefit. Ten of the 21 policies middle-ranked in importance would benefit; eight would disbenefit

  Beneficial

  Other Government Policies

  N/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Greater than

  Aviation Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what commitments have been given to UK airlines since 11 September about(a) insurance cover for terrorist risk, (b) compensation for compulsory grounding, (c) the reallocation of unused slots, (d) compensation for extra security, (e) the payment of passenger ticket taxation and (f) state assistance to offset financial losses; and what representations have been received in respect of each of the above. [8016]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The aviation industry has made a number of representations to the Government about the financial difficulties that it faces as a result of the downturn in passenger demand following the terrorist attacks on 11 September. The Government have taken action to provide temporary third party insurance cover for war and terrorism risk, but no commitments have been given in respect of any other requests. The European Commission has now produced guidelines on what financial assistance they might allow member states to provide to airlines, and these will be discussed at the Transport Council meeting on 16 October.

  London Underground
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish punctuality and reliability figures for each of the London Underground lines for each of the past five years. [7450]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 27 April 2001,Official Report, columns 423–25W. Full year figures for 2000–01 showing percentage of kilometres operated are now available and are shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Lines

  2000–01

  Bakerloo

  82.6

  Central

  96.6

  Waterloo and City

  96.8

  Circle and Hammersmith

  81.8

  District

  92.9

  Jubilee

  89.2

  East London

  94.1

  Metropolitan

  95.0

  Northern

  96.5

  Piccadilly

  86.6

  Victoria

  95.8

  Total

  91.6

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what has been the total cost to Her Majesty's Government of the delay in the public-private partnership for London Underground; [7788]

  (2) what has been the total cost to Her Majesty's Government of (a) consultants' fees and (b) legal expenses arising from the proposed PPP for London Underground. [7789]
  1170W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) on 10 May 2001,Official Report, column 256W. The Government will continue to provide six-monthly updates to Parliament on the cost of the consultancy work for the PPP and the restructuring of London Underground. The next report will also provide an assessment of the expected final outturn.

  Any additional direct costs resulting from extensions to the timetable are largely in the form of additional consultancy costs. But the sooner the Tube modernisation plans can be put in place the sooner Londoners will benefit.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the assessments of the costs of the proposed private-public partnership for London Underground, including reports from Deloittes and Parsons Brinckerhoff; and if he will make a statement. [6770]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The Government's plans for a publicly run, privately built Tube will deliver around £13 billion of investment to improve the underground's infrastructure over the next 15 years. The Secretary of State has stated that these plans will go ahead only if they demonstrate value for money.

  To assess whether this is the case, London Transport and its advisers are carrying out a thorough evaluation of the cost and value for money of bids. My Department is also commissioning Ernst and Young to carry out an independent review of London Transport's evaluation to ensure that it is completed on a fair and robust basis. Ernst and Young's review will be published, but not before London Transport has completed its negotiations with bidders.

  The reports to which my hon. Friend refers from Deloittes and Touche and Parsons Brinckerhoff were produced for Transport for London.

  Railtrack
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give a breakdown of the money granted to Railtrack from public funds since the Hatfield disaster. [7940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between 17 October 2000 and 1 October 2001, no public money was paid direct to Railtrack, but its profitability during that period was contingent on public money. For example, in 2000–01, some 85 per cent. of Railtrack's £2,476 million income was paid to it in access charges by train operating companies, which were paid £847 million in Support for Passenger Services (SPRS) by the Franchising Director and the Strategic Rail Authority.

  On 1 October 2001, Railtrack was paid £337 million of network grant, in accordance with the terms of the company's 2 April agreement with the Government; and the company, or its successor body, will be paid

  1171W
  £162 million of network grant in 2001–02 in respect of the (October 2000) final conclusions of the Rail Regulator's periodic review of access charges.

  PCV Drivers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the number of PCV (passenger carrying vehicle) driving examiners: and what steps the Government are taking to reduce the impact on the recruitment by public and private operators of new PCV drivers. [6553]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driving Standards Agency has 327 driving examiners nationwide who are qualified to conduct PCV practical driving tests. In addition there are 68 examiners employed by bus and coach companies authorised to conduct PCV practical tests of drivers in those companies and a further 114 fire service and police examiners authorised to conduct practical PCV tests for drivers in their authorities.

  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is running a scheme for a faster service for applications for provisional bus driving licences in response to a request from the Confederation of Passenger Transport. The scheme was initially trialled by several companies nominated by the Confederation before being extended to all bus companies on 1 May 2001. DVLA will turn around applications made under the scheme within 48 hours of receipt and provide a faxed letter of entitlement to drive on the same day the application is processed.

  NATS
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what income the Government have received from the sale of National Air Traffic Services. [7844]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 886W.

  Training Directive
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the EU training directive on the road haulage industry; [7461]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the EU training directive on the bus and coach industry. [7459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The likely impact of the draft European Commission Directive proposing compulsory training for professional lorry and bus drivers was considered in our April 2001 Consultation Paper. This contained an initial Regulatory Impact Assessment that will be developed in the light of responses to the Consultation Paper. Copies of the Consultation Paper are available in House Libraries.

  Public Expenditure Review
  Mr. Pickles:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his Department's public expenditure review. [7465]
  1172W
  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department publishes its public expenditure plans annually in its departmental annual report. A copy of the current report 'DETR Annual Report 2001, Cm 5105', is available in the Library of the House.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps have been taken to improve rail safety since the publication of the second part of Lord Cullen's report. [7466]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have asked the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) to ensure that the 74 recommendations in Lord Cullen's report are acted upon and to report progress within six months.

  Transport 10-Year Plan
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what reassessment will be made of public expenditure in the transport 10-year-plan to deal with the effects of terrorism. [7457]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will consider, as part of the next spending review, the potential effects on departmental expenditure, including the transport 10-year-plan.

  Terminal 5
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to make a statement on Heathrow terminal 5. [7468]

  Ms Keeble
  The decision on terminal 5 will be issued as soon as possible, consistent with full and careful consideration of the inquiry inspector's report. I cannot comment on any issues relating to T5 or the inspector's report while the decision is going through the relevant statutory procedures.

  The Secretary of State is currently consulting on BAA's revised proposals for diverting two rivers which flow across the site (the "Twin Rivers"). We anticipate that the Twin Rivers consultation exercise will be completed by around the middle of October.

  General Election (Spoilt Ballot Papers)
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many spoilt ballot papers there were, and what percentage they represent of the total number issued, in each parliamentary constituency, at the general election held on 7 June. [6650]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is being collected by the Electoral Commission who will publish it as part of a further report on the 2001 general election. We understand the report will be published next spring.

  Dunstable Bypass
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will visit Dunstable in order to assess the need for a bypass. [6620]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The A5 Dunstable Eastern Bypass is one of three schemes that has specifically been remitted to the London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study. The need for the bypass is being assessed by this study.

  Local Government Finance
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish his proposals on the reform of local government finance. [7539]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The Local Government White Paper due to be published later this year will set our financial reforms in the context of the wider modernisation agenda and will include a Daughter Document detailing our financial proposals.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what provision has been made for canal access in respect of the Birmingham northern relief road; and if he will make a statement. [6659]

  Ms Keeble
  The Birmingham northern relief road (BNRR) will go over the Birmingham Fazeley Canal at Curdworth and over the Wyrley Essington Canal at Burntwood and I can confirm that existing towpaths will be maintained alongside the canals through the bridges under BNRR.

  Abandoned Cars
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his proposal to reduce the number of abandoned cars. [7293]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many complaints about Housing Benefit have been received from each local authority area by the local government ombudsman in each year since 1997. [7906]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held centrally. However, the table provides a breakdown of the number of complaints received about Housing Benefit in each of the three local government ombudsman areas between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2001.

  Year

  Area A

  Area B

  Area C

  Total

  1997–98

  725

  206

  216

  1,147

  1998–99

  913

  171

  281

  1,365

  1999–2000

  1,669

  258

  426

  2,353

  2000–01

  2,704

  356

  968

  4,028

  To 31 March 2001, the local government ombudsman areas were: (A) incorporating local authorities in Greater London; (B) incorporating local authorities in southern England (except Greater London), East Anglia, the south-west and most of central England; (C) incorporating local authorities in Birmingham, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and the north of England.

  Polling Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 1174W
  assessment he has made of the accessibility of polling stations to disabled people in the general and local elections in June. [6509]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have considered carefully the SCOPE report "Polls Apart 3" about the June 2001 general election. That report concluded that there had been some improvements on polling station accessibility, but that more needs to be done. In the light of this we will continue to work, with the Electoral Commission, to secure further improvements in polling station accessibility.

  Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi Modal Study
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from individuals and organisations in Cambridgeshire about the recommendations of the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study. [6502]

  Ms Keeble
  Representations on the study report were invited by the regional planning body for the east of England, to whom the report was remitted. I understand that they received over 200 written representations and further views were elicited through stakeholder workshops. Some of the representations were copied to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to be able to make a decision on the recommendations of the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study. [6503]

  Ms Keeble
  The regional planning body for the east of England are examining the study report in the light of the emerging regional transport strategy. Once they have advised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on whether they support the recommendations in whole or in part, he will consider their advice and make an announcement.

  Coach Services (Huntingdon/London)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the restoration of a coach service from Huntingdon to London. [6167]

  Ms Keeble
  Long-distance coach services are provided on a commercial basis and decisions on which services to run are primarily for operators. While I am aware of the recent withdrawal of a service by another operator, I understand National Express continue to provide a daily direct coach service between Huntingdon and London.

  Isle of Wight Council
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what grants have been paid to the Isle of Wight council for the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and if he will indicate which are hypothecated for a particular purpose. [7957]
  1175W
  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is given in the table. Figures are taken from statistical returns sent to my Department by the Isle of Wight Council.

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  General grant

  77,614

  83,135

  88,412

  Grants ring fenced for a particular purpose: of which

  7,107

  8,367

  12,436

  Education grants

  2,181

  4,228

  7,039

  Social Services grants

  1,460

  1,725

  2,407

  Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services grants

  1,852

  864

  1,502

  Capital Finance grants

  1,614

  1,550

  1,488

  Total

  84,721

  91,502

  100,848

  English Partnerships
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he proposes to review the future of English Partnerships. [8242]

  Ms Keeble
  I am today announcing a review to be undertaken by my Department, as to the future of English Partnerships. I have decided to bring forward the quinquennial review due in 2003 to ensure that the future of English Partnerships is given greater clarity and focus. The terms of reference for the whole review are set out as follows.

  During the review we will be seeking the views of a wide range of interested organisations. We expect to complete the first stage of the review examining the role of English Partnerships by the end of this year. Subject to confirmation of their continued existence, we aim to complete the review of the structure and skills of the organisation by Easter, to ensure that English Partnerships can deliver their new role. I will publish the findings of the first stage of the review in the New Year.

  The Terms of Reference for the review are as follows:
  "To review the role of English Partnerships in delivering the Government's policies; to consider the future ownership of CNT assets and liabilities, and recommend such changes as might be necessary in the light of the review To consider English Partnerships' structure and processes to ensure effective and efficient delivery of its remit".

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education SSA
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for each year since the area cost adjustment was introduced, what the standard spending assessment for each pupil was in(a) Bedfordshire, (b) Hertfordshire and (c) Cambridgeshire. [6106]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows for 1998–99 to 2001–02 the education SSA per pupil for Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire. It is not possible to produce comparable figures for earlier years, because Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire were subject to local government reorganisation.
  1176W

  Standard spending assessments (SSAs) per pupil in cash terms

  £

  Bedfordshire

  Hertfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  1998–99

  2,463

  2,554

  2,369

  1999–2000

  2,566

  2,659

  2,485

  2000–01

  2,693

  2,785

  2,591

  2001–02

  2,841

  2,933

  2,697

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Huntingdon have school meals provided by the local authority. [6108]

  Mr. Timms
  There were 1,497 pupils on the returns of maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Huntingdon parliamentary constituency to the 2001 annual schools' census recorded as having had a free school meal provided for them.

  Teachers' Pay Differentials
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to restore the pay differential between school teachers and lecturers in further education. [6109]

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

  This year alone an additional £527 million is available for FE, a 4 per cent. real terms increase on last year. Funding will increase again next year by a further 3 per cent. This compares with the period between 1993–94 and 1996–97 when FE funding per FTE student fell by 12 per cent. in real terms.

  As part of the planned increases, we are investing £300 million in the Teaching Pay Initiative over the next three years to allow colleges, including sixth form colleges, to reward high quality teaching. This is separate to any general pay rise a teacher may receive.

  Education Provision (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in Huntingdon have not had an offer of a secondary school place for September. [6110]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials from Cambridgeshire education authority confirm that all pupils in Huntingdon have had an offer of a school place. Some children whose parents are unwilling to accept the place offered to them by the authority, and are pursuing an appeal, remain out of school.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the class sizes were for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Huntingdon (i) on 31 March and (ii) in each year since 1996. [6161]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools is derived from returns made by schools to the Department in January each year on the annual schools' census.
  1177W
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Average class sizes1 in maintained primary and secondary schools in Huntingdon parliamentary constituency

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  January each year

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Average class size

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Average class size

  2001

  352

  9,698

  27.6

  323

  7,148

  22.1

  2000

  342

  9,598

  28.1

  307

  7,029

  22.9

  1999

  344

  9,964

  29.0

  312

  6,723

  21.5

  1998

  347

  9,916

  28.6

  312

  6,647

  21.3

  1997

  353

  9,918

  28.1

  308

  6,563

  21.3

  1996

  345

  9,624

  27.9

  302

  6,593

  21.8

  1 Classes taught by one teacher

  The latest class data were recently published in a statistical volume "Schools in England 2001" on 28 September, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Skills statistical website www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many lecturer vacancies there were in further education in Huntingdon(a) on 31 March and (b) in each year since 1996. [6162]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Information on staff numbers in FE, collected on the Staff Individualised Record (SIR) by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) and latterly by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), does not include details of vacancies, leavers, salary or grade. However I understand that the Further Education National Training Organisation (FENTO) has given an estimate of UK-wide vacancies for 1999–2000 in its publication "Skills foresight for Further Education in the United Kingdom (January 2000)".

  The FEFC collected and published information on staff numbers in the FE sector on an annual basis. The responsibilities of the FEFC have now been taken over by the LSC.

  School Governors
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many governors have been appointed under the School Governors' One-Stop shop scheme since its inception; [6483]

  (2) what the cost per governor placed is of the School Governors' One-Stop Shop scheme. [6482]

  Mr. Timms
  Since its inception in January 2000, the School Governors' One-Stop Shop (SGOSS) has found 1,258 school governor candidates, of whom 435 are now serving governors and a further 126 are matched with schools and awaiting final placement. We expect all those recruited to be placed in due course. The cost per serving governor, placed through SGOSS, is currently £840.70. The cost per recruited governor is currently £290.70.

  Graduate Teacher Programme
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the number of places available under the Graduate Teacher Programme. [6541]
  1178W
  Mr. Timms
  The number of Graduate Teacher Programme places available has risen every year since the programme was introduced in January 1998. In the 2001–02 academic year, 2,250 fully funded places are being offered, over 700 more than last year. Each of these places attracts grants of up to £17,000.

  I announced on 24 September that additional places would be made available in January 2002 with grants of up to £4,000 to cover training costs only. With demand for places on the Graduate Teacher Programme buoyant, these places are being offered in response to requests from head teachers who are willing to meet the salary costs of trainees from their schools' own budgets.

  Threshold Assessments
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reduce the administrative burden on headteachers of the threshold training and supervision of their staff. [6546]

  Mr. Timms
  Threshold assessment has enabled over 200,000 teachers in England and Wales to have their professional effectiveness confirmed and gain a substantial pay increase. The number of first-round applicants was exceptionally large and its successful implementation is a tribute to the professionalism of everyone involved particularly head teachers. The number of second-round applicants will be much smaller, guidance and training materials have been improved and heads will be able to build on their first round experience. Accordingly, the second round of threshold assessment will be much less time consuming for heads than the first.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reduce the administrative burden on teachers and cost to schools of the New Opportunities Fund training. [6547]

  Mr. Timms
  The New Opportunities Fund ICT teacher training is being provided to ensure that serving teachers feel confident and are competent to teach using ICT within the curriculum. The effective use of ICT in the classroom will reduce rather than increase the burden on teachers, by equipping them to access and use a much wider range of teaching aids. The flexibility of the New Opportunities Fund programme minimises the cost to the school as the training budget itself is not charged to an individual school.

  School Funding (Havering)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding per pupil was provided to grant maintained schools in the London borough of Havering in the year immediately prior to the end of grant maintained status; and what funding per pupil these schools have received in the current financial year. [6549]

  Mr. Timms
  In the financial year 1998–99, the grant-maintained (GM) schools in the London borough of Havering, all of which were secondary schools, received recurrent funding from the former Funding Agency for Schools (FAS) amounting on average to £2,690 per pupil. For the financial year 2001–02, the most closely comparable figure currently available in respect of these schools is £3,120 per pupil. The figures have been calculated to the nearest £10 on the basis of pupil numbers from the annual schools' census for January 1998 and January 2001.

  The calculations for 1998–99 are based on financial information supplied to the Department by FAS. The figures include annual maintenance grant together with special purpose grants for development, GNVQ, premises insurance, and the purchase of books, but not other special purpose grants or capital grants. Where the schools' annual maintenance grant included an element to compensate the schools for their inability to reclaim VAT, appropriate adjustments have been made to reflect this.

  The calculations for 2001–02 are based on information from the budget statement published by the local education authority under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, supplemented and updated (in the case of specific grants) by information separately provided by the LEA. The figures include the schools' budget shares (including school standards grant), and standards fund resources devolved to the schools (but excluding capital grants, and other grants relating to school security and the National Grid for Learning).

  In 1998–99, under arrangements specific to the GM sector, the GM schools in Havering received formula capital allocations from FAS amounting on average to £32 per pupil. Under the NDS devolved formula capital arrangements which apply to all schools, the Havering ex-GM schools' allocations for 2001–02 amount on average to £29 per pupil; these figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

  Veterinary Medicine
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places to study veterinary medicine will be available in England and Wales in(a) 2001, (b) 2005 and (c) 2010. [6557]

  Margaret Hodge
  We do not have forecasts of the number of veterinary science places for 2001, 2005 or 2010.

  The current number of students (December 2000) is as follows:

  Veterinary science students

  Number

  Postgraduate (PG)

  Full-time

  200

  Part-time

  100

  1180W

  Veterinary science students

  Number

  Undergraduate (UG)

  Full-time

  2,100

  Part-time

  50

  Total

  2,500

  Note:

  Figures do not sum due to rounding. Figures are normally rounded to the nearest 1,000 students, but in this case have been rounded to the nearest 50, as figures are so small.

  Source:

  December 2000 HESA student record

  Our public higher education student number projections only go as far ahead as 2002–03 at present. Furthermore, these projections do not contain a breakdown by type of course studied.

  Broadband Network
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to extend the broadband network to schools and universities; and over what time period. [6608]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The Government have allocated around £80 million between 2000–02 on providing schools with broadband access. The money is allocated through regional broadband consortia (RBCs) and local education authorities (LEAs), who have been commissioned to provide cost-effective and co-ordinated broadband internet connectivity at 2 Mbits or faster to 20 per cent. of schools in their region, including all secondary schools, by August 2002. The Government intend to increase the number of schools with a broadband connection beyond the current target of 20 per cent. of all schools in future years.

  Universities have had a broadband network for many years, called the Joint Academic Network (JANET). The network not only connects all universities, but also all colleges of further and higher education, and research centres.

  Curriculum 2000
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance has been issued to universities about Curriculum 2000. [6641]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Last month, the Department, Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and partner organisations jointly published a revised edition of a booklet "Changes to Post-16 Qualifications" on Curriculum 2000 for higher education institutions. The booklet was distributed to all UCAS members' institutions and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Further Education
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) employment practices and (b) colleges there are in the further education sector; and what implications these figures have for consistency on pay rates for the same role. [6670]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are 428 colleges in the further education sector in England: the Department does not collect information on their employment practices.
  1181W
  Further education colleges are run by independent corporations, established under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Each FE corporation is responsible for the pay and terms and conditions of its staff. There is no national pay agreement in the FE sector but there is a national recommended pay award determined by a joint union/employer negotiating forum.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consideration she has given to nationally agreed pay scales in the further education sector. [6671]

  Margaret Hodge
  FE sector colleges are run by independent corporations, established under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The terms and conditions of the staff that work in FE are a matter for the employers to determine, in discussion with the relevant unions. The Government play no part in these discussions but have encouraged employers and unions to discuss the scope for modernising pay and conditions under the FE Teaching Pay Initiative.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff there were in further education in each of the last five years. [6672]

  John Healey
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Numbers of staff employed in the FE sector

  England

  Thousands

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total staff

  1995–96

  99.1

  117.7

  216.7

  1996–97

  96.3

  121.8

  218.1

  1997–98

  94.3

  135.0

  229.3

  1998–99

  93.8

  137.0

  230.8

  1999–2000

  95.0

  134.9

  229.9

  1 Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding

  The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) collected and published information on staff in the FE sector on an annual basis. The responsibilities of the FEFC have now been taken over by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Information on staff is taken from the Staff Individualised Record (SIR), which covers teaching staff, staff who support teaching and learning and other support staff. The SIR covers FE sector colleges in England only.

  SIR data for the whole year were collected from all colleges for the first time in July 1995, relating to the 1994–95 college year. This collection has been repeated annually since then; the latest data available are for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many further education colleges were categorised by the FEFC as financially weak in each of the last three years. [6679]

  John Healey
  The numbers of further education colleges categorised by the FEFC as financially weak in each of the last three years are:

  1998: 80 colleges

  1999: 65 colleges

  2000: 69 colleges.

  1182W
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance will be given to category C colleges to pay recommended pay awards in full. [6680]

  Margaret Hodge
  Pay and conditions are matters for college corporations to determine. The Learning and Skills Council will work closely with individual category C colleges—that is, those colleges that are financially weak—to produce action plans aimed at addressing the causes of the college's financial difficulties. We are determined to work with the LSC and the individual colleges to improve the quality of all colleges to the standard of the best. Where appropriate, and as part of the agreed action plan, the LSC is able to provide additional financial support and flexibility to colleges that are financially weak.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the rate of returns of PFI contracts in schools in England and Wales. [6759]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The rate of return to a private sector contractor in a schools PFI contract is fixed as part of the annual payment made by a local education authority for delivery of the services specified in the contract, and as such is a matter between the local education authority and its private sector partner. All PFI contracts in schools have to demonstrate better value for money then traditional procurement.

  PFI in schools in Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Spending
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total amount of spending by her Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of her Department's total spending this constitutes; and if she will make a statement. [6863]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills does not have responsibility for spending outside England except for higher education student support and its administration for students from Wales plus some small programmes. The table shows estimated programme spending by Government region in 1999–2000 by the then Department for Education and Employment on those programmes for education and skills which are now the responsibility of this Department. It does not include local authority expenditure on education and training funded from the education standard spending assessment. This is paid through the revenue support grant distributed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Central Government expenditure on education and skills programmes 1999–2000

  Region

  £ billion1

  Percentage2

  London

  2.2

  17

  South East

  1.5

  12

  South West

  1.4

  10

  East

  1.6

  12

  West Midlands

  1.5

  11

  1183W

  Central Government expenditure on education and skills programmes 1999–2000

  Region

  £ billion1

  Percentage2

  East Midlands

  1.1

  8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1.3

  10

  North East

  0.7

  5

  North West

  1.9

  14

  Total

  13.2

  100

  1 Expenditure figures rounded to nearest £100 million

  2 Percentage figures may not appear to sum due to rounding

  Notes:

  1. Total excludes approximately £100 million expenditure in Wales on student loans, mandatory awards, student loan administration for higher education students from Wales

  2. Total includes New Deal for Schools capital, the Children's Fund, Sure Start and Ofsted. Total also includes some smaller programmes of which the proportion allocated outside England is less than £20 million.

  3. Total does not include annually managed expenditure—the vast majority of this is teachers' pensions, which also covers Wales.

  Source:

  Departmental Report 2001 and internal analysis

  Dyslexic Pupils
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the number of primary school age children(a) who are dyslexic and (b) whose condition has been helped by special provision; and if she will make a statement. [6962]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The information requested is not held centrally.

  Since 1981, following the Warnock recommendation, information about pupils' special educational needs categorised by disability or learning difficulty has not been collected centrally. We are looking into the feasibility of collating such information. A pilot study was carried out in June and this is currently being evaluated.

  Session

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Commons named day PQs answered:

  on the named day1

  714

  532

  235

  183

  up to two days after

  124

  172

  129

  41

  between three days and one week after

  68

  167

  129

  16

  between one and four weeks after

  50

  111

  102

  6

  between four weeks and three months after

  9

  32

  25

  0

  over three months after

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Total

  965

  1,016

  620

  246

  1In accordance with Standing Order 22(4) (usually three days from date of tabling)

  Session

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Commons Ordinary Written PQs answered:

  within five days of tabling1

  703

  588

  185

  184

  up to two days after

  200

  107

  91

  8

  between three days and one week after

  165

  210

  215

  11

  between one and four weeks after

  155

  154

  134

  5

  between four weeks and three months after

  6

  23

  22

  1

  over three months after

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Total

  1,189

  1,087

  557

  209

  1In accordance with guidance on answering of Ordinary Written PQs set out in parliamentary paper HC 393 (1971–72)

  1184W
  If the pilot is successful—and subject to consideration of the burden on schools and LEAs—the new data collection arrangements will be introduced nationally from 2003 as part of the Department's new Common Basic Data Set (CBDS) arrangements.

  Correspondence
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what was, for each year since 1995, the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords; [7003]

  (2) what was, for each year since 1995, the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by her Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if she will make a statement. [7004]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The effective handling of correspondence and parliamentary questions is an issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance.

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

  Information on response times of parliamentary questions (PQs) for years prior to the 1998–99 parliamentary session is not held centrally.

  The average response times for Commons and Lords written PQs could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the tables show the data that are readily available on PQ response rates.
  1185W

  Session

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Lords Written PQs answered:

  within 14 days of tabling1

  132

  134

  53

  12

  up to two days after

  0

  0

  1

  0

  between three days and one week after

  0

  0

  2

  0

  between one and four weeks after

  0

  0

  0

  0

  between four weeks and three months after

  0

  0

  4

  0

  over three months after

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  132

  134

  60

  12

  1 In accordance with section 4.108 of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords

  Religious Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it a requirement to include teaching on the non-religious ethical life stance alongside the major faiths in multi-faith religious education; and if she will make a statement. [7129]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have no plans to change the legislation on agreed syllabuses which, since it was introduced in 1988, has helped to contribute towards the rising standards in religious education in non-faith schools reported by Ofsted. Opportunities exist in religious education teaching for pupils to explore issues within and across faiths thereby learning to understand and respect different religions, beliefs, values and traditions (including ethical life stances), and their influence on individuals, societies, communities and cultures.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will extend Government guidelines on multi-faith religious education in community schools to all maintained religious schools. [7128]

  Mr. Timms
  Extending the guidelines in the way my hon. Friend suggests would undermine the purpose and ethos of faith schools. Religious education in these schools will continue to be taught in accordance with the trust deed or in accordance with the tenets of the religion in question.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in each of the last five years

  Key Stage 1

  Key Stage 2

  Key Stage 3

  Reading

  Writing

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  1997

  2,600

  2,600

  2,500

  1,900

  1,700

  1,700

  1,200

  800

  1,000

  1998

  2,500

  2,600

  2,500

  2,800

  2,500

  2,400

  1,700

  1,100

  1,300

  1999

  2,500

  2,500

  2,400

  2,300

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  1,400

  1,700

  2000

  2,400

  2,500

  2,400

  2,800

  2,500

  2,400

  3,600

  1,400

  1,700

  2001

  2,500

  2,600

  2,500

  3,400

  2,900

  2,800

  3,300

  1,700

  2,000

  AS-Levels
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish further details of the revised arrangements for AS-level examinations and assessment in the academic year. [7261]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  On Wednesday 12 September 2001 the Secretary of State announced the new changes to the AS examination timetable and assessment as part of the review of the A-level reforms. The Joint Council for General Qualifications (JCGQ) sent information about the 1186W
  were excluded from sitting SATS because they were (a) statemented for special educational needs or (b) in the process of being assessed for special educational needs. [7257]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The national curriculum test and teacher assessments are designed to allow as many pupils as possible to have access to them. There may, however, be a small number of pupils who are unable to take part in some or all of the assessments. In such instances the national curriculum and/or the tests and teacher assessments may be disapplied for a particular pupil. Pupils may be disapplied through a statement of special educational needs or because they are awaiting an assessment of special educational needs. However, there may be other circumstances where it is necessary to disapply pupils temporarily (for example, pupils recently arrived from a different educational system who require a period of adjustment).

  The national curriculum test and teacher assessment results information collected for disapplied pupils includes the total number of pupils disapplied in each subject at each key stage. This information does not differentiate between pupils with statements of special educational needs, those in the process of being assessed or between long term and temporary disapplication.

  The following table provides information on the total number of pupils disapplied in each subject at Key Stages 1–3 in each of the last five years (1996–2001). Figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  changes to all schools and colleges on 12 September. Information on the arrangements can also be found on awarding bodies' and Joint Council's websites. The Joint Council will issue more detailed information on 17 October.

  Literacy and Numeracy Targets
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's targets are for literacy
  1187W
  and numeracy levels at age 11 in each of the next five years; and what steps she proposes to take if those targets are not reached. [7280]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The targets for 2002 are for 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds to achieve the expected standard in literacy and 75 per cent. in numeracy. We are currently consulting schools on raising these targets to 85 per cent. in both English and maths for 2004. We are not at present proposing targets beyond 2004. We are confident that these challenging targets can be achieved.

  Emotional Intelligence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make the development of emotional intelligence part of the national curriculum; and if she will make a statement. [7298]

  Mr. Timms
  The development of emotional intelligence is already covered in the National Curriculum as part of the Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) framework. The framework has been in place since September 2000 for pupils aged five to 16 and was introduced to support the personal and social development of young people in today's complex and changing world. PSHE enables pupils to develop their self-esteem, confidence and well being. It also helps pupils to appreciate the effect of their actions on their own lives and the lives of others, and to understand the limits and codes of personal and social behaviour. Good PSHE in schools supports parents in helping their children to develop the ability to make informed, healthy and responsible decisions about their lives.

  The National Healthy School Standard (NHSS), which was launched in October 1999, has as one of its specific themes 'Emotional Health and Well-being', which includes awareness of mental health issues. The Standard is delivered as an integral part of the Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) framework in schools.

  School Exclusions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many exclusions from schools relating to drug-related incidents there were in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Staffordshire in the last three years. [7343]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested on drug related exclusions in respect of England is not collected centrally.

  The latest permanent exclusions data were published on 19 July in a Statistical First Release 'Permanent Exclusions from Schools, England 1999–2000 (final)', copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Skills statistical website www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Exclusions in Scotland and Wales are a devolved matter and therefore matters for the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales respectively.

  Neighbourhood Support Fund
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the results of the Neighbourhood Support Fund. [7381]
  1188W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The first of the Neighbourhood Support Fund (NSF) projects went live in spring 2000. The 653 community based projects have worked with almost 17,000 of the hardest to help young people. Recent evaluation of the programme by an independent research organisation shows that one third of leavers had moved on to education, training or employment with training. A further one in 10 had gone on to a local programme, including the Learning Gateway or the New Deal.

  The next phase of the evaluation will draw on the experiences and perceptions of the young people participating in the projects. This will help to inform future strategies for engaging the hardest to help young people.

  The stage 2 report will be published in the spring.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to extend the Neighbourhood Support Fund; and if she will make a statement. [7382]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A total of £60 million was made available to the Neighbourhood Support Fund spread over three years. The current programme comes to an end in September 2003 and Ministers have yet to decide whether NSF will extend beyond this date, and if so in what form. Any future levels of funding will be addressed and agreed as part of the Year 2002 Spending Review.

  The current NSF projects are due to finish in September 2003. I am considering the future shape, design and delivery of NSF and where it sits in the context of the Connexions Service.

  Morning-after Pill
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the maintained schools in which the morning-after pill is dispensed to pupils. [7484]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]This information is not held centrally.

  The incidence of the morning-after pill being dispensed in maintained schools is low. We would not normally expect school nurses to issue contraception or emergency contraception. In the few cases where they have done, this should be made clear in the school's sex and relationship education policy, which has to be agreed with parents. These arrangements should not proceed until parents have been consulted.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 year old pupils achieved five or more(a) grade A*—A at GCSE/GNVQ in (i) comprehensive schools, (ii) grammar schools and (iii) secondary modern schools and (b) grades A*—B at GCSE/GNVQ in (i) comprehensive schools, (ii) grammar schools and (iii) secondary modern schools. [7498]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]In 1999–2000 the percentage of 15 year old pupils who achieved five or more(a) grade A*—A at GCSE/GNVQ in (i) comprehensive schools, (ii) selective schools and

  1189W
  (iii) secondary modern schools and (b) grades A*—B at GCSE/GNVQ in (i) comprehensive schools, (ii) selective schools and (iii) secondary modern schools was:

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving 5 or more grades:

  (a) A*—A

  (b) A*—B

  Comprehensive schools

  8.3

  22.7

  Selective schools

  47.9

  82.6

  Secondary modern schools

  2.1

  10.6

  England

  11.8

  27.1

  Bullying
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish statistics on homophobic and racist bullying within(a) schools and (b) colleges; and if she will make a statement. [7642]

  Mr. Timms
  Bullying can put the emotional well-being and educational achievement of young people at risk. All schools should treat bullying seriously and take steps to combat it whenever and wherever it occurs. From September 1999 head teachers of maintained schools have been under a duty to draw up measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils, including racist or homophobic bullying.

  Further education colleges are not under a legal duty to prevent bullying or harassment but most do draw up policies in this area. Students who experience problems can usually receive counselling or pastoral help.

  We do not have reliable statistics on the incidence of bullying in schools and are not aware that such data exist for colleges. Our role is mainly to provide advice to schools on how to prevent bullying and deal with any which occurs.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Government's strategy to deal with homophobic and racist bullying within schools and colleges. [7643]

  Mr. Timms
  Bullying can put the emotional well-being and educational achievement of young people at risk. All schools should treat bullying seriously and take steps to combat it whenever and wherever it occurs. From September 1999 head teachers of maintained schools have been under a duty to draw up measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils, including racist or homophobic bullying.

  Last December we launched a new anti-bullying strategy, comprising among other things a new pack for schools and accompanying video aimed at pupils. There is also a new anti-bullying website at www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying. The pack provides detailed advice on tackling bullying because of race or sexual orientation (the latter for the first time). It also mentions that heads can permanently exclude pupils responsible for persistent or violent bullying. The key message of our strategy is that victims should report bullying to someone they trust and not suffer in silence.

  We have recently provided a short foreword to 'Safe for All: a best practice guide to prevent homophobic bullying in secondary schools' published by Stonewall.
  1190W
  Further education colleges are not under a legal duty to prevent bullying of harassment but most do draw up policies in this area. Students who experience problems can usually receive counselling or pastoral help.

  Teacher Shortages (Surrey)
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of teacher shortages in Surrey; which are the shortage subjects and age groups; what steps she has taken to tackle teacher shortages in Surrey; and what the average sum per school is(a) in Surrey and (b) nationally allocated by her Department to deal with this. [7703]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department collects statistics on teacher vacancies annually. In January this year the vacancy rate in Surrey was 1.4 per cent. compared with a rate of 1.3 per cent. in England as a whole. Officials have maintained regular contact with Surrey local education authority over recent months and I am pleased to be able to report that schools in Surrey are operating normally. Recruitment is more difficult in secondary schools, particularly in the shortage subject areas of mathematics, science, English, modern languages or technology. The Government have put in place a range of measures such as training bursaries, "Golden Hellos" and the welcome back bonus to boost teacher recruitment. We have provided £33 million in funding to be devolved to schools to put in place local recruitment and retention initiatives. Surrey received £650,000 from the recruitment and retention fund. Ninety per cent. of this was targeted at secondary schools giving an average of around £11,000 per secondary school in Surrey. In England the average allocation was around £9,000 per secondary school. The fund was targeted at areas of greatest need and not all schools will have received an allocation.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans her Department has to distribute(a) coins and (b) other commemorative items to school children to mark the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen. [8035]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]We have no plans to distribute coins or other commemorative items to school children. However, my Department is planning a range of innovative projects to mark Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee, such as a national poetry competition which we announced jointly with Buckingham Palace on 4 October. Further announcements will be made in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce new appointments to the Police Complaints Authority. [8320]

  Mr. Denham
  I have appointed five new full-time members to the Police Complaints Authority. Their appointments will be for three years. The five new members are as follows.
  1191W

  Name

  Start date

  Previous position

  Jeniffer Rogers

  3 September 2001

  Mental Health Act Commissioner, Mental Health Review Tribunal, ICIS (Independent Consultants in Health and Social Services) Associate

  Nicola Williams

  3 September 2001

  Barrister

  Elaine Rassaby (part-time)

  3 September 2001

  Mental Health Act Commissioner, OFSTED Complaints Adjudicator, Member of Criminal Injuries Compensation Panel

  Sally Hawkins (part time)

  3 September 2001

  Freelance writer and broadcaster, council ombudsman, Director of Banking Codes Standards Board, Non-Executive Director of University College Hospital Lewisham, Justice of the Police.

  Ann Barker

  3 December 2001

  Historian, Member of the Parole Board. Justice of the Peace.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support he has given to Cambridgeshire constabulary to tackle drug-related crime. [6169]

  Mr. Denham
  The following allocations have been made by the Home Office to support the Cambridgeshire constabulary in tackling drug related crime:

  Arrest Referral Schemes

  Initiative Communities Against Drugs Initiative

  2000–01

  106,800

  1—

  2001–02

  216,480

  2643,700

  1 Initiative commenced 2001–02

  2 Although this sum was allocated to the two Cambridgeshire Crime and Disorder Partnerships (£446,800 and £196,900 to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough respectively), the police are major stakeholders in the initiative, which is aimed at tackling drug related crime within local communities

  In addition, as members of the local Crime and Disorder Partnerships and Drug Action Teams, the Cambridgeshire constabulary has access to other forms of Home Office funding for projects and initiatives which contribute, either directly or indirectly, to reducing drug-related crime.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of criminal offences were drug-related in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [7294]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It is difficult to calculate a single percentage figure reflecting precisely what proportion of all crimes is drug-related since no statistical data are collected on offences that may have been committed due to drug taking. However, information is collected on the number of drug offences. Details of the number of persons convicted of or cautioned for drug offences and as a proportion of persons convicted of or cautioned for all indictable offences in England and Wales during the period 1995–99 are given in the table.

  Drug offences

  All indictable offences

  Drug offences as a percentage of all indictable offences

  1995

  88,463

  504,800

  17.5

  1996

  88,920

  491,400

  18.1

  1997

  105,214

  509,400

  20.7

  1998

  120,776

  533,500

  22.6

  1999

  111,377

  512,600

  21.7

  Source:

  Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit Huntingdon Life Sciences. [6170]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have no plans at present to visit Huntingdon Life Sciences. My predecessor visited on 26 April. Since becoming Home Secretary I have held a number of discussions aimed at ensuring businesses and individuals involved in important scientific research where animal experimentation is necessary can safely carry on their work without impediment from those who try to intimidate or obstruct them.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for asylum, broken down by country of origin, have had their applications refused in the last four years; and how many are known(a) to have left the United Kingdom and (b) to have remained within the United Kingdom. [7118]

  Angela Eagle
  Data on initial decisions on asylum applications refused asylum or exceptional leave to remain, by nationality, for 2000 are given in the table. This does not include details of appeals outcomes or of asylum seekers who are subsequently given leave to remain on other grounds.

  Information on the numbers of asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom, by nationality, is not currently available. The total numbers of known removals in each of the last four years, excluding dependants, are given in the table:

  Initial decisions made on applications received: Refusals1,2,3 of asylum and exceptional leave, excluding dependants, by nationality, 1997 to 2000

  Number of refusals of principal applicants

  Nationality

  1997

  1998

  19994

  20005.6

  Europe

  Albania

  175

  260

  175

  1,875

  Czech Republic

  210

  180

  275

  1,775

  FRY

  380

  565

  460

  13,830

  Poland

  860

  1,070

  520

  1,765

  Romania

  635

  1,155

  345

  2,695

  Russia

  65

  85

  55

  900

  Turkey

  1,475

  1,015

  290

  2,090

  Ukraine

  190

  430

  80

  1,045

  Other Former USSR

  545

  1,260

  465

  3,285

  Other Former Yugoslavia

  170

  140

  180

  1,280

  Other

  1,325

  1,095

  220

  605

  Total

  6,030

  7,260

  3,065

  31,145

  1193W

  Initial decisions made on applications received: Refusals1,2,3 of asylum and exceptional leave, excluding dependants, by nationality, 1997 to 2000

  Number of refusals of principal applicants

  Nationality

  1997

  1998

  19994

  20005,6

  Americas

  Colombia

  380

  810

  155

  1,775

  Ecuador

  740

  1,000

  135

  650

  Other

  265

  95

  60

  470

  Total

  1,385

  1,905

  350

  2,900

  Africa

  Algeria

  655

  180

  160

  1,330

  Angola

  535

  90

  35

  425

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  255

  110

  50

  990

  Ethiopia

  185

  60

  35

  355

  Gambia

  430

  165

  15

  30

  Ghana

  1,330

  425

  130

  225

  Ivory Coast

  175

  285

  75

  265

  Kenya

  980

  630

  495

  785

  Nigeria

  4,315

  1,840

  780

  770

  Rwanda

  15

  35

  150

  440

  Sierra Leone

  380

  525

  120

  480

  Somalia

  305

  100

  120

  2,365

  Sudan

  205

  65

  50

  395

  Tanzania

  485

  140

  30

  60

  Uganda

  525

  120

  55

  480

  Zimbabwe

  115

  45

  105

  525

  Other

  845

  640

  465

  1,860

  Total

  11,740

  5,465

  2,875

  11,780

  Middle east

  Iran

  170

  125

  75

  2,815

  Iraq

  110

  90

  100

  2,220

  Other

  260

  135

  110

  945

  Total

  540

  350

  285

  5,975

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  75

  65

  90

  1,515

  Bangladesh

  555

  275

  375

  870

  China

  1,380

  1,500

  200

  5,480

  India

  2,395

  1,450

  750

  2,125

  Pakistan

  2,870

  1,950

  990

  3,720

  Sri Lanka

  1,710

  1,950

  1,945

  6,875

  Other

  240

  145

  70

  1,015

  Total

  9,225

  7,335

  4,415

  21,600

  Other, and nationality not known

  20

  *

  40

  2,280

  Grand total

  28,945

  22,315

  11,025

  75,680

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with *=1 or 2

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  3 Includes refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country and non-compliance refusals, for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period: see explanatory note 6

  4 Exclude cases where an application has been refused under the backlog criteria

  5 May include some cases where an application has been refused under the backlog criteria

  6 Provisional figures

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been housed in cluster areas in Essex by the National Asylum Support Service in the last 12 months; and what support is being provided to community groups and public services in these areas. [6282]
  1194W
  Angela Eagle
  To date the National Asylum Support Service has not established any cluster areas in Essex.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the most recent information he has concerning the detention of asylum seekers under immigration law; and how many were detained, broken down by(a) location (b) number of applicants detained and (c) number of appellants detained. [7282]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The latest available information on the number of asylum seekers detained under Immigration Act powers by place of detention relates to 30 June 2001 and is given in the table. Information on the stage of asylum application is not available and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Detained asylum seekers1 as at 30 June 20012

  Location

  Number

  Belmarsh

  40

  Brixton

  10

  Campsfield House

  180

  Cardiff

  40

  Dover Harbour

  5

  Harmondsworth

  65

  Haslar

  145

  High Down

  40

  Holme House

  55

  Lindholme

  95

  Liverpool

  70

  Longport

  10

  Manchester Airport

  10

  Rochester

  160

  Tinsley House

  105

  Wandsworth

  50

  Winchester

  35

  Wormwood Scrubs

  20

  Other prison establishments3

  120

  Oakington Reception Centre

  265

  Total

  1,515

  1 Persons detained under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having sought asylum at some point.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five, and exclude persons detained in police cells. Figures include 135 persons who are recorded as being detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  3 Other prison establishments with five or fewer detainees.

  Trenchard House
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to consult the local community before putting on the market the police accommodation at Trenchard House, London. [4812]

  Mr. Denham
  The decision to sell Trenchard House rests with the Metropolitan Police Authority. The Chair of the Authority informs me that the Authority has received a number of representations which it is considering.

  Occupational Health (Police)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on occupational health in the police force. [5411]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are currently working on the development of a national occupational health strategy, locally delivered, for the police service. This will be aimed at reducing sickness absence through improved human resources policy, sickness management and the
  1195W
  provision of services. An improved occupational health service will enable forces to bring down the rate of sickness absence, and variations between forces, through supportive measures for officers.

  Policing (North Wales)
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last received a report on policing in North Wales from the Chief Constable of North Wales Police. [5616]

  Mr. Denham
  Under section 44 (4) of the Police Act 1996, every Chief Constable is required, as soon as possible after the end of the financial year to submit to the Home Secretary a general report on policing during that year of the area for which his or her force is maintained. The Chief Constable of North Wales Police and the North Wales Police Authority produced a joint annual report for 2000–01 which was submitted to the Home Office in mid-August.

  Prisons
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pr loners in each prison establishment are held(a) two to cell in a single cell and (b) three to a cell in a double cell. [5409]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of prisoners in each prison establishment held two to a cell designed for one and total overcrowding at the end of August 2001. Data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  'Doubling' is a Prison Service indicator. The target is for doubling to be at or below 18 per cent. The rate of doubling for the year to April 2001 is 16 per cent.

  The Prison Service does not collect centrally the number of prisoners held three in a double cell. Prisons report the total overcrowding level, which includes prisoners held three to a cell for two and those overcrowded in dormitories and larger cells.

  Prison name

  Two to a cell designed for one

  Total overcrowding

  Acklington

  0

  0

  Albany

  0

  0

  Altcourse

  820

  820

  Ashfield

  0

  0

  Ashwell

  0

  0

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  Aylesbury

  0

  0

  Bedford

  130

  130

  Belmarsh

  0

  306

  Birmingham

  254

  254

  Blakenhurst

  96

  96

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  Blundeston

  0

  0

  Brinsford

  72

  72

  Bristol

  82

  82

  Brixton

  238

  238

  Brockhill

  0

  0

  Buckley Hall

  56

  56

  Bullingdon

  76

  285

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  Camp Hill

  222

  222

  Canterbury

  198

  198

  Cardiff

  0

  0

  Castington

  0

  0

  1196W

  Prison name

  Two to a cell designed for one

  Total overcrowding

  Channings Wood

  16

  16

  Chelmsford

  28

  28

  Coldingley

  0

  0

  Cookham Wood

  58

  58

  Dartmoor

  0

  0

  Deerbolt

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  580

  580

  Dorchester

  148

  148

  Dovegate

  0

  0

  Dover

  0

  0

  Downview

  32

  32

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  Durham

  328

  328

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  Eastwood Park

  56

  56

  Elmley

  228

  228

  Erlestoke

  0

  0

  Everthorpe

  64

  64

  Exeter

  352

  352

  Featherstone

  0

  0

  Feltham

  0

  0

  Ford

  0

  0

  Forest Bank

  0

  0

  Foston Hall

  0

  0

  Frankland

  0

  0

  Full Sutton

  0

  0

  Garth

  0

  0

  Gartree

  0

  0

  Glen Parva

  404

  404

  Gloucester

  156

  156

  Grendon

  0

  0

  Guys Marsh

  54

  54

  Haslar

  0

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  Haverigg

  0

  0

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  High Down

  0

  186

  Highpoint

  0

  0

  Hindley

  0

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  0

  Holloway

  0

  0

  Holme House

  136

  136

  Hull

  0

  0

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  Kingston

  0

  0

  Kirkham

  0

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  Lancaster Farms

  24

  24

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  Leeds

  834

  834

  Leicester

  248

  248

  Lewes

  34

  34

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  304

  304

  Lindholme

  0

  0

  Littlehey

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  442

  442

  Long Lartin

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  66

  66

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  0

  Maidstone

  0

  0

  Manchester

  474

  474

  Moorland

  34

  34

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  Mount

  40

  80

  New Hall

  56

  56

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  Northallerton

  144

  206

  Norwich

  372

  372

  Nottingham

  228

  228

  Onley

  0

  0

  Parc

  0

  0

  1197W

  Prison name

  Two to a cell designed for one

  Total overcrowding

  Parkhurst

  6

  6

  Pentonville

  388

  388

  Portland

  6

  6

  Preston

  548

  548

  Ranby

  76

  76

  Reading

  146

  146

  Risley

  36

  36

  Rochester

  0

  0

  Rye Hill

  0

  0

  Send

  0

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  6

  6

  Shrewsbury

  290

  290

  Stafford

  0

  0

  Standford Hill

  0

  0

  Stocken

  52

  52

  Stoke Heath

  0

  0

  Styal

  56

  56

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  Swaleside

  0

  0

  Swansea

  0

  0

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  0

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  Usk

  180

  180

  Verne

  26

  26

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  472

  472

  Wayland

  36

  36

  Wealstun

  0

  0

  Weare

  0

  0

  Wellingborough

  0

  0

  Werrington

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  0

  0

  Whatton

  0

  0

  Whitemoor

  0

  0

  Winchester

  318

  318

  Wolds

  0

  0

  Woodhill

  126

  126

  Wormwood Scrubs

  30

  30

  Wymott

  0

  0

  Forged Passports
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the action taken by his Department on matters relating to a forged passport reported under the reference HQ/PC/01620000675 on 23 December 2000. [5636]

  Angela Eagle
  I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Member that the passport in question has been recovered by the Immigration Service. Inquiries into the matter are continuing and I understand that the Chief Executive of the Passport Service will shortly be writing to the hon. Member with further details.

  Football Clubs (Police Charges)
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police charges paid by each London professional football club in seasons 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [5902]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is set out in the table.
  1198W

  £

  Football Club

  Amount paid in 1999–20001

  Amount paid in 2000–20011

  Arsenal

  259,106.66

  308,703.58

  Barnet

  6,290.76

  20,086.74

  Brentford

  55,730.44

  48,410.74

  Charlton

  41,472.83

  55,599.87

  Chelsea

  221,335.28

  173,981.73

  Crystal Palace (2000)

  —

  115,347.80

  Crystal Palace

  189,361.87

  82,435.38

  Fulham

  112,275.54

  80,530.23

  Leyton Orient

  55,135.22

  34,956.92

  Millwall

  46,188.49

  76,023.56

  Queens Park Rangers

  74,814.51

  64,142.21

  Tottenham

  243,266.63

  231,822.84

  West Ham

  184,794.52

  193,492.31

  Wimbledon

  171,640.12

  149,169.39

  Total

  1,661,412.87

  1,616,703.30

  1 Financial years

  Essex Police
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Essex police regarding his proposals to reform police pay and conditions. [6220]

  Mr. Denham
  In the context of the police reform programme, I have received representations from the Association of Police Authorities (APA) and from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) regarding possible changes to police pay and conditions of service. The Essex police authority is a member of the APA. The Chief constable of Essex is a member of ACPO.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the projected number of serving constables is in the Essex police force for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [6213]

  Mr. Denham
  Essex police have informed me that they expect to have 2,345 constables on 31 March 2002 and 2,497 constables on 31 March 2003.

  Crime Survey
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people aged 60 years or over reported, in the most recent national crime survey, that their lives are greatly affected by fear of crime. [5957]

  Mr. Denham
  Results from the last British Crime Survey (2000) estimated that 10 per cent. of people aged 60 and above reported that their quality of life was greatly affected because of their fear of crime.

  Comparing results elicited from the most recent British Crime Survey with those from the previous sweep (1998), shows that the percentage of those aged 60 or over that reported that their fear of crime as greatly affected their quality of life has not changed.

  These results went reported in "Opportunity for all. One year on: making a difference. Second annual report 2000" (Cm 4865). This has been deposited in the Library.

  Community Sentencing
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has collated on the likely effect of community sentences on rates of re-offending; and if he will make a statement. [6054]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Analysis of reconviction rates for different disposals shows that reconviction after community sentences does not differ greatly from that after other sentences once the underlying population characteristics have been taken into account. In recent years reconviction rates after community sentences have stayed fairly constant. However, there is a broad consensus in the research literature that some specific interventions are effective in reducing further offending, typically achieving around a 10-percentage point reduction in reconviction rates. A review of what works can be found in Home Office Research Study 187 'Reducing offending an assessment of research evidence on ways of dealing with offending behaviour'.

  Five principles have been found to be key to effective work with offenders:

  1. More intensive programmes need to be targeted at high risk offenders.

  2. Programmes should focus on factors affecting criminal behaviour eg anti social attitudes, drug dependency, low levels of educational and vocational skills, poor cognitive and inter-personal skills.

  3. Programmes need to be properly carried out by trained staff and not deviate from their aims and objectives.

  4. Active, participatory styles of delivery are more effective than unstructured or overly didactic methods.

  5. The most effective types of interventions are skills-based and are designed to improve problem-solving and social interaction.

  The National Probation Service is developing new approaches to working with offenders based on research and the principles outlined above in its pathfinder programmes.

  Evidence about the effectiveness of these approaches in reducing offending is beginning to emerge but it takes time to obtain reconviction results. The main measure—reconviction rates two years after release from prison or completion of order—is typically only available some three years after the offender has been on the programme. Therefore evidence is only becoming available in 2001 for offenders who started programmes in 1998. Annexe A summarises the currently available evidence, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward legislation relating to the rights of victims of crime; and if he will make a statement. [6101]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are fully committed to meeting the needs of victims of crime and to introducing a Bill of Rights as promised in their manifesto. In February 2001, a consultation paper was issued to review the Victim's Charter, in which comments were invited on the introduction of statutory rights for victims. The consultation period ended on 15 June and a summary of responses was placed in the Library in July.
  1200W
  Further detailed work is currently being carried out on victims' rights and the other possible new developments outlined in the consultation paper. I will make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  Police Housing
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision the Government have made for long-term police housing in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [6098]

  Mr. Denham
  It is a matter for individual Police Authorities to determine the number and location of police houses in their force area.

  Under the Government's Starter Home Initiative nearly 900 police officers/police civilians, of whom 340 are outside the Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London, will benefit from £230 million allocated to 95 schemes to help them buy their first home. The forces that will benefit from the scheme are set out in the table.

  Force

  Number of homes for police officers/police civilians

  Metropolitan and City

  552

  Thames Valley

  171

  Hampshire

  48

  Sussex

  25

  Surrey

  24

  Cambridgeshire

  25

  Hertfordshire

  47

  A further 220 police officers are expected to benefit from a £20 million scheme to provide interest free equity loans of £10,000. This will be available in housing hotspots outside London.

  Thames Valley Police
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many working hours were lost by Thames Valley police due to sick leave in the last year for which figures are available. [6103]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary records police sickness in days. In 2000–01, Thames Valley police lost 53,659 days due to sick leave, an average of 14.3 days per officer.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many constables are available for ordinary duty in Henley; and how many there were in 1997. [6102]

  Mr. Denham
  I am told by the Chief Constable that Henley has 21.3 full-time equivalent constables. Thames Valley police is unable to make a direct comparison with 1997 because of territorial boundary changes. Henley is now a rural sector of the Southern Oxfordshire Division. In 1997 it was an outstation of Reading.

  Bradford (Disorder)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to West Yorkshire police of payments to other police forces for assistance in policing the recent disorders in
  1201W
  Bradford; what plans he has to pay an additional grant to the West Yorkshire police; and if he will make a statement. [5967]

  Mr. Denham
  I am told by the Chief Constable that the cost of mutual aid provided by other forces to West Yorkshire police for the policing of the disorders in Bradford is estimated at £1 million.

  West Yorkshire Police Authority has not formally asked for additional financial assistance. I will carefully consider any request from the police authority in accordance with the criteria for applications for special grant in exceptional circumstances which we have established in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.

  A4OM (Census)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will evaluate the effectiveness of using police resources to stop car drivers on Westbourne Terrace off the A4OM on 16 July, to undertake a census; and if he will make a statement. [5996]

  Mr. Denham
  The survey of drivers on Westbourne Terrace on 16 July was one of a programme of similar surveys undertaken by Transport for London as part of the 2001 London Area Transport Survey. To conduct such surveys it is necessary to stop the vehicles passing the survey point and only police officers have the general power to do this. The cost of police involvement in such surveys is borne by the survey sponsors.

  The Government recognise that police involvement in such surveys may not be seen as the most effective use of police resources. We are looking at this issue, and others, within the context of the police reform programme, through which we aim to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the police.

  Under-age Drinking
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he will bring forward to reduce the incidence of under-age drinking and associated nuisance in public places. [6231]

  Mr. Denham
  The Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 provides a power for the police to confiscate alcohol from young people under 18 who are drinking in public places and who are creating disorder or causing nuisance. In addition, the law relating to the sale or purchase of alcohol to or for young people has been strengthened through the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, whether the intention is to consume the alcohol on licensed premises or elsewhere. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 will further strengthen the law by placing a positive duty on licensees and their staff not to sell to any person unless they are certain of age.

  Reducing under-age drinking and the problems associated with this are key objectives of the Home Office action plan on alcohol-related crime and disorder.

  Alcohol-related Violence
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he will take to enable the police to deal more effectively with alcohol-related violence and disorderly behaviour. [6230]
  1202W
  Mr. Denham
  In addition to broader measures to tackle violent crime and disorder, we are implementing the programme set out in the Home Office action plan on alcohol-related crime and disorder. This focuses on reducing under-age drinking, public drunkenness and alcohol-related violent crime. Specific measures, given legislative effect through the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, include new powers for local authorities to restrict antisocial drinking in specified public areas, with increased police powers of arrest and a power to confiscate alcohol; new powers for the police to order the immediate closure of licensed premises for up to 24 hours where there is disorder or disturbance; strengthening of the law relating to the sale of alcohol to those under 18; and a widening of the existing offence of permitting drunkenness or other violent or disorderly conduct on licensed premises.

  Departmental Contracts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the top 10 companies to which his Department contracted out their construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months. [6420]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The top 10 companies by value of contracts awarded (excluding Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects which are contracted with special purpose PFI vehicles) with which the Home Office has contracted for construction and refurbishment works in the last 12 months are in alphabetical order:

  Amey Asset Services Limited

  Balfour Beatty

  Caledonian Building Systems

  Carillion plc

  Henry Boot Construction UK Limited

  How Engineering Services

  John Mowlem Construction plc

  Mansell plc

  Tilbury Douglas Construction Limited

  Wates Construction Limited.

  Treason Felony Act
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the Treason Felony Act 1848 is used to prosecute those contravening it. [5889]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Where any offence is alleged, it is for the police to decide whether and how it should be investigated, and whether to initiate a prosecution. It will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether it is appropriate for such a prosecution to be continued.

  Police (Racial Fairness)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent reports he has received from the police inspectorate on racial fairness in the police services. [7152]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has carried out three thematic inspections looking at community and race relations issues and the progress the police service is making in
  1203W
  this area since 1997, as well as a review of murder investigation and community and race relations issues in the Metropolitan Police Service.

  The reports are as follows:

  Winning the Race—Policing Plural Communities (1997)

  Winning the Race—Policing Plural Communities.

  Revisited (1999)

  Winning the Race—Embracing Diversity (2001)

  Policing London—Winning Consent (2000).

  In addition HMIC carries out regular inspections of individual forces, and as part of this process will consider how these forces are progressing on community and race relations issues.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of fair treatment on the basis of race in police employment; and if he will make a statement. [6762]

  Mr. Denham
  A top priority for the Government is to ensure that the police service is more representative of the communities it seeks to serve and that it should reflect and be strengthened by the full diversity of society. The Home Secretary has published targets for the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic police officers in "Dismantling Barriers". As part of the assessment of forces' progress in meeting those targets, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary inspected all forces in England and Wales. Their inspection report "Winning the Race—Embracing Diversity" published in January 2001 concluded that the great it majority of forces were progressing satisfactorily, or exhibiting good practice, in minority ethnic employment.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7239]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Information on the normal retirement age and on compulsory early retirement or severance for my Department and for the executive agencies and public sector bodies for which my Department is responsible is as follows.

  The normal retirement age for non-industrial staff is 60, and for industrial staff 65. However, the age retirement policy for grades between Administrative Assistant and Executive Officer (including equivalent grades, except certain Prison Service specific grades) has been temporarily relaxed. Staff in these categories who would normally retire at age 60 can choose to stay on until 31 March 2002, subject to health and efficiency considerations. Staff at Higher Executive Officer level and above can also apply for extensions of service subject to business needs, but the expectation is that they would normally retire on reaching the age of 60.

  A variation to this policy is applied in the Prison Service where pre "fresh-start" Prison Officers employed before 1987 retire at age 55, and Operational Support Grades retire at 65.
  1204W
  The compulsory early retirement or severance procedures followed in the Home Office are subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs 11.5 and 11.6 of the Civil Service Management Code. As a pre-redundancy measure, Departments and agencies may call for volunteers to leave on compulsory terms to avoid compulsory redundancy procedures. Staff may also be retired on compulsory early retirement or severance terms on grounds of structure, and on early retirement on grounds of limited efficiency. Early retirement applies to staff aged 50 or over, early severance applies to staff aged under 50.

  The Home Office's age retirement policy is currently under review.

  Ministerial Travel
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in his Department for official overseas visits; what the(a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if he will make a statement; [6928]

  (2) if he will list all official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in his Department in each year since May 1997, indicating (a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying Ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if he will make a statement. [6927]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 823W.

  London Weighting
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the total annual value of London weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6854]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The estimated total value of London weightings and London living allowances for the Home Department (including Agencies) is £38,270,000. These allowances are not consolidated into pay.

  Youth Custody Orders (Wirral)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youth custody orders have been issued in each of the last four years in each of the four constituencies on the Wirral. [6358]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is shown in the table.

  Information collected centrally does not permit a distinction between the four Wirral constituencies to be made and figures for the Wirral magistrates court (which covers all four constituencies) have been given. Crown court figures have also been included where the committing court was Wirral.
  1205W
  The sentence of youth custody was replaced by detention in a young offender institution by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The table however contains all forms of immediate custody imposed on offenders under 21 years of age during the years requested.

  Persons under 21 sentenced to immediate custody in the Wirral Petty Sessional Area

  Year

  Sec. 53 C and YPA 1933

  Young offender institution

  Secure training order

  Total immediate custody

  1996

  4

  120

  —

  124

  1997

  1

  133

  —

  134

  1998

  2

  96

  1

  99

  1999

  4

  105

  2

  111

  Data for 2000 are not yet available.

  Violent Offences
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further information he has collated on violence(a) against women by men and (b) by women against men in addition to that contained in the British Crime Survey; and if he will publish these findings. [6627]

  Mr. Denham
  There are various sources of information about various forms of interpersonal violence.

  The statistics on crimes recorded by the police do not routinely collate information on victims and offender characteristics. Some additional detail was provided in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/01.

  The "Homicide Index" stores information on victims and suspects of homicide. This information is published in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1999", CM 5001, which has been deposited in the Library. This publication also contains information on rape and other sexual offences.

  The Policing and Reducing Crime Unit have collated some police force information on cases of robbery in the year 2000. This information includes gender of offenders and victims and will be published in due course.

  The Policing and Reducing Crime Unit are to produce a report on male rape using police force data. Information from the British Crime Survey will also feed into this report. This is planned for publication in 2002.

  In 2000 the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit published a series of Briefing Notes on "What Works" in reducing domestic violence.

  The Serious Crimes Analysis Section, within the National Crime Faculty, have collected a wide range of information about serious sexual offences, murder and abductions. This information is used for operational support of major police investigations in relation to the apprehension of perpetrators. It is not published.

  Information relating to women and contact with all aspects of the criminal justice system is given in a 'Section 95' publication—"Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System, 2000". This is updated annually by the Home Office. The information on violent victimisation of women comes from sources already
  1206W
  mentioned—police recorded crime statistics and the Homicide Index. Estimates from the British Crime Survey are also included.

  The Performance and Strategic Management Unit are preparing 'Too kits' on Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences. These are designed to bring together information from public and voluntary sector organisations on all aspects of crime reduction strategy and best practice. These are due to be published later in the autumn of this year.

  Community Safety Partnership (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the members of the Board of the community safety partnership for Wiltshire, (b) the executive teams and their functions and (c) the themes addressed in the current year. [5861]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]Information is not held centrally on the membership of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, also commonly referred to as community safety partnerships, established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In Wiltshire, the county council works closely with the four district-based community safety partnerships in the county who have responsibility for developing and implementing individual crime and disorder reduction strategies for their areas. The first strategies were published in March 1999 for the period 1999–2002. The next three-year strategies are due for publication by the end of March 2002. Crime and disorder reduction partnerships play an important role in tackling crime locally, ensuring a joined-up approach to crime prevention and community safety.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) antisocial behaviour orders and (b) curfew orders have been made in (i) Salisbury district and (ii) Wiltshire since the statutory commencement of the schemes. [5862]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) being applied for and issued is collected centrally by Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) area only. We have no record of any such orders being made in the Wiltshire MCC between April 1999 and June 2001.

  No applications have been received from local authorities or the police to establish child curfew schemes under section 14 of he Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. These amendments extended the upper age limit to 15 and allow the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. These changes were implemented on 1 August 2001.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) antisocial behaviour orders and (b) curfew orders have been made in (i) Worthing borough, (ii) Adur district and (iii) Sussex since the statutory commencement of the schemes. [7611]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) being applied for and issued is collected centrally by Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) area only. Between
  1207W
  April 1999 and June 2001, four antisocial behaviour orders were applied for and issued in the Sussex MCC area.

  No applications have been received from local authorities or the police to establish child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. These amendments extended the upper age limit to 15 and allow the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. These changes were implemented on 1 August 2001.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department (1) how many cells in police stations have been closed in each of the last three years: and if he will make a statement; [6559]

  (2) how many police stations (a) have custody facilities and (b) have no such facilities; and if he will make a statement. [6612]

  Mr. Denham
  It is an operational decision for the Chief Constable to determine the number of custody facilities/police cells required by his/her fore Information about the number of police stations with custody suites and the number of cell closures in each of the last three years is not held centrally and could ht obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Crime (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the increase in crime north of York in recent months; and if he will make a statement. [7154]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The most recently published recorded crime statistics show that in the 12 months to March 2001 total crime in the North Yorkshire police force area fell by 3.7 per cent. compared with a 2.5 per cent. fall in England and Wales. Figures for individual Basic Command Units are also available in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/01 'Recorded Crime', published on 19 July 2001, copies of which are available in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary a State for Work and

  Thousand

  May 1997

  May 1998

  May 1999

  May 2000

  May 12001

  Income Support

  3,958

  3,853

  3,814

  3,811

  3,928

  Jobseeker's Allowance—income-based

  1,225

  1,027

  948

  824

  701

  Housing Benefit

  4,640

  4,475

  4,313

  4,033

  3,863

  Council Tax Benefit

  5,500

  5,326

  5,166

  4,830

  4,657

  Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit

  748

  767

  791

  1,024

  1,214

  Disability Working Allowance/Disabled Persons Tax Credit

  13

  15

  17

  23

  27

  1 The 2001 count for Disabled Persons Tax Credit was taken in April not May 2001.

  1208W
  Pensions what assessment he has made of the number of those persons gaining and losing from the introduction of new child support mechanisms from 2002. [7270]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Based on an assessment made in 1998,1 had cases transferred to the reformed scheme at that time, around 65 per cent. of non-resident parents in work would have seen a reduction in their child support liability while 35 per cent. would have seen an increase. However, only around one half of non-resident parents paying through the CSA pay all that is currently due, so a simple comparison of potential liabilities is therefore misleading. Increased compliance will mean that more of the maintenance due will actually be paid. The child support reforms have been introduced to ensure that more children see the benefit of maintenance and over one million children will gain.
  1 New scheme maintenance modelled on August 1998 5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System. Caseloads calibrated to forecast 'A' day levels.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what target he has set for the accuracy of(a) maintenance assessment. (b) maintenance assessment debts and (c) full maintenance balances calculated by the Child Support Agency for 2001–02. [7263]

  Malcolm Wicks
  My right hon. Friend has set the following target for the accuracy of maintenance assessments calculated by the Child Support Agency for 2001–02:"Accuracy on the last action for all assessments checked in the year to be correct to the nearest penny in at least 78 per cent. of cases".

  No targets are set for the accuracy of maintenance assessment debts and full maintenance balances.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of non-resident parents who make child maintenance contributions to the Child Support Agency chose to terminate their employment within 12 months of their initial assessment in the last 12 months. [7587]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For the 12 months ending 30 September 2001, 9 per cent. of employed non-resident parents making child maintenance contributions to the Child Support Agency moved out of employment within 12 months of their initial assessment. No breakdown of the reasons for non-resident parents' change of employment status is available.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of how many people were in receipt of means-tested benefits and tax credits for each year since May 1997. [7787]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.
  1209W
  Notes:

  1. For Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance and Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error. Other data are taken from 100 per cent. counts.

  2. Figures are for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Some people may be entitled to more than one means-tested benefit. A large proportion of people receiving Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, may also be receiving one of the other means-tested benefits/tax credits. Figures car not therefore be added together to produce a total.

  4. The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  5. The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit totals for Great Britain include estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

  6. Council Tax Benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  7. Housing Benefit figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 to May 2001

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 to May 2001

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in May of each year from 1997

  Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit, May 1997 to May 2001

  Disability Working Allowance/Disabled Person Tax Credit May 1997 to May 2001

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of non-take-up of Income Support among the over-60s, for(a)those under 75 and (b)those over 75. [8049]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest available figures on the number of people entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee are included in the publication "Take-Up of Income Related Benefits: Statistics for 1999–2000", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the uptake was in(a) the UK, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000 and (v) 2001–01 of (A) Child Benefit, (B) Housing Benefit, (C) Council Tax Benefit, (D) Family Credit and (E) the Working Families Tax Credit expressed as a percentage of those eligible; and if he will make a statement. [6734]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is published in the annual statistics on "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up", copies of which are in the Library. These estimates are for Great Britain.

  It is not possible to produce reliable estimates for different parts of Great Britain. Information on benefit take-up is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  No statistics are published for Child Benefit; however it is believed that on average 98 per cent. of families take up their entitlement to Child Benefit.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what representations he has received regarding the impact of the proposed incapacity benefits reforms on the Scottish Executive's anti-poverty initiative; [7068]

  (2) what representations he has received from the Scottish Executive about increasing levels of benefit take-up. [7069]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are in regular contact with the Scottish Executive on a wide range of issues. Both the Government and the Scottish Executive are committed to reducing poverty and we work in close partnership in this area. Changes to social security legislation are, of course, a reserved matter for the UK Parliament.

  State Retirement Age
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for changing the state retirement age. [6507]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pensions Act 1995 equalised state pension age for men and women from a future date. Women's state pension age will be increased gradually from 60 to 65 between the years 2010 and 2020. State pension age will be equalised at 65 for both men and women from 6 April 2020.

  New Deal (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Huntingdon are in the New Deal programme; and how many were placed in employment up to June. [6165]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  At the end of June 2001, 238 people in Huntingdon were participating in the New Deal for Young People, New Deal 25+, New Deal 50+ and New Deal for Lone Parents and 466 had been placed in employment.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what consultation process was followed in regard to the insurance industry of the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations issued on 22 November 2000; [6742]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations issued on 22 November 2000 on the disability pension paid by employers and their insurers. [6745]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Copies of the regulations were sent in draft to a range of organisations including the Association of British Insurers and the National Association of Pension Funds for their comment.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment of the measures in the Welfare Reform end Pensions Act 1999 was published on 21 May 1999. The Social Security (Incapacity Benefit)

  1211W
  Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 2000 ensure that all the commitments made during the passage of the Act are met.

  Pension Funds
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the timetable is for the phased abolition of the minimum funding requirement applicable to pension funds. [7998]

  Mr. McCartney
  On 7 March 2001 the Government announced their proposals to replace the minimum funding requirement (MFR) with a long-term scheme specific funding standard, with additional measures to strengthen security. Our proposals offer better protection that provides more effective security for scheme members without damaging consequences for investment.

  On 18 September 2001 we published "The Minimum Funding Requirement: The Next Stage of Reform". This document seeks views on the workability of draft regulations that introduce changes to the current MFR regime in advance of its replacement. The consultation period ends on 10 December 2001, and we plan to introduce these changes early next year.

  Implementing our proposals to replace the MFR in full will require primary legislation, and in the meantime we are working with the pensions industry and other interested parties to develop proposals for legislation when parliamentary time becomes available.

TREASURY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the projected cost is to(a) UK and (b) Scottish industry of implementation of the climate change levy over the next three years. [6501]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion in its first year, all of which will be recycled back to business through national insurance contribution cuts and support for energy efficiency. While the levy is broadly revenue neutral, it is not possible to say at this stage what the effects on any specific country, sector or industry will be. That will depend on a number of factors including:the future energy consumption of firms in the country/region/ sector and employment levels in those firms;
  the number of energy intensive firms in that country/region/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 country/region/sector make of electricity generated from 'new' renewable sources of energy and in 'good quality'.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Thalidomide Trust about issues arising from the Diageo Covenant. [6166]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor receives a number of representations from a variety of organisations.

  Frozen Assets (Afghanistan)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Taliban assets in the UK which are frozen; when assets of the(a) Afghan National Credit and Finance and (b) the National Trading Company of Afghanistan were frozen; and what the value of frozen assets is. [8013]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The UK Government have frozen £63 million of Taliban assets since sanctions were introduced; details of the assets are listed in the table. No funds belonging to Afghan National Credit and Finance have been frozen in the UK. The National Trading Company of Afghanistan assets were frozen on Friday 5 October 2001 as a temporary measure. When the freeze lapsed, we decided to take no further action as they work for the state of Afghanistan and not the Taliban, and are therefore not covered by the UN sanctions.

  Bank/company

  Number of accounts1

  Sterling value (£ million)

  Pashtany Tejaraty bank

  6

  3

  Banke Millie

  11

  4.5

  Da Afghanistan bank

  13

  55

  Ariana Airlines

  2

  0.4

  Khalid Al-Fawwaz

  1

  23.19

  Total

  33

  63

  1 Approximately

  Terrorist Bank Accounts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what global resources he has proposed since 11 September and to which bodies in respect of the use of off-shore bank accounts by terrorists and others. [7313]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UN resolutions are binding upon all states, which are expected to apply them as a matter of international law.

  Health and Education Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a breakdown of the proportion of total gross domestic product spent by EU states on health and education in the most recent year for which figures are available, indicating the private and public portion of each nation's expenditure. [7794]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest information on health is contained in the "Compendium of Health Statistics", a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has its own definition of education spending as a proportion of GDP. Their figures for each European Union country were published in "Education at a Glance", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The latest figures for expenditure as a proportion of GDP for the UK were provided by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in her reply to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 20 July 2001, Official Report, column 776W.

  Airline Industry (State Aid)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussion he has had with the(a) DTI, (b) European

  1213W
  Commission and (c) representatives of UK airlines regarding possible state aid for the airline industry; and if he will make a statement. [7780]

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to offer financial assistance to British airlines. [7464]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), on 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1169W to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).

  Census Data (Bromley)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the full census data for Bromley will be published; [7968]

  (2) when the summary census results for Bromley will be published; [7966]

  (3) what measures will be taken to provide accurate and reliable census data for Bromley; [7969]

  (4) what percentage of households in Bromley completed a census return. [7967]

  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. Eric Forth, dated 16 October 2001:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the 2001 Census in Bromley. (7966–69)
  In answer to your first question, the target date for mid-year 2001 population estimates by sex and age for all local authority areas (and including the London borough of Bromley) based on the 2001 Census is August 2002. These will include an adjustment for births, deaths and migration between Census Day (29 April 2001) and 30 June 2001. The target date for summary Census results—Key Statistics for areas throughout England and Wales (including London boroughs) is December 2002. They will be laid before Parliament and accessible through the National Statistics website.
  With regard to your second question, at this stage I am unable to provide detailed information on the response rate to the Census in Bromley. This will be available in Autumn 2002. Currently ONS estimates that the 2001 Census response rate nationally will reach 98 per cent of households.
  The full census data for Bromley will be published along with the detailed results for all the other local authority areas in the first half of 2003; these will be accessible via the National Statistics website.
  In your final question you ask what measures will be taken to provide accurate and reliable census data for Bromley. A number of steps have either already been implemented or will be taken to ensure this. Prior to the Census an important new initiative was the Community liaison programme which had as its main objectives:
  To facilitate enumeration and ensure full coverage.
  To help provide a source of potential field staff.
  To advertise the Census and underline its uses.
  To provide help to individual members of local communities.
  To help with translations and advertising.
  This, coupled with the new strategy of asking the public to post their completed forms back, enabled resources to be targeted to where they were most needed.
  1214W
  Despite these efforts, it was always anticipated that some people would not be counted and that the degree of under-enumeration would vary across the country. The extent and nature of such under-enumeration will be more accurately assessed than ever before by the extensive, separate, follow-up Census Coverage Survey carried out by interviewing around 300,000 households shortly after the Census enumeration was completed. Once the interview responses and all the Census returns have been analysed, we will have a definitive picture of how well we have done at Local Authority level. The sample size for London was large enough for estimates of levels of under-enumeration for each borough to be made and will enable ONS to create a complete dataset for analysis of individual communities that takes account of this estimated under-enumeration.

  Information about the quality of Census data will be published on the National Statistics website and brought together in a Census Quality Report to be published in 2003.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Incineration
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on specifically requiring county councils to include incineration in their waste plans. [6330]

  Mr. Meacher
  County councils are not specifically required to include incineration in their waste plans. The Government are committed to maximising waste reduction, recycling and composting and minimising the need for incineration and landfill.

  However Government policy, as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 (PPG10), states that waste planning authorities should not seek to prohibit the development of particular types of waste facility unless they are confident that adequate alternative facilities will be available in their area.

  Foot and Mouth
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the loss in revenue to the farming industry in England as a result of foot and mouth since the start of the outbreak. [6069]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is very much aware that the outbreak is having a considerable impact on farming and a range of industries throughout the UK. However, it is not possible at thin stage to make a reliable estimate of the overall loss of revenue caused by the outbreak. DEFRA is working with a number of other Government Departments to prepare such an estimate and the results of this work will be made publicly available. We are also developing proposals for a survey to collect information from farmers on the direct and indirect impact of foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will visit Throckmorton to discuss the implications for the local community of the carcase disposal site. [6435]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans for the Secretary of State to visit Throckmorton. DEFRA officials have worked closely with residents, who are represented on a Local Liaison Group made, together with one representative from the three adjoining Parish Councils.
  1215W
  The last disposal of carcases at this site was on 20 May; adjoining land is being used for storage of surplus materials and equipment. Steps have been taken to reduce noise and wherever possible the number of vehicles delivering surplus materials on site has been limited to five or six per day. Sunday working ceased on 16 September.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the United Kingdom's balance of trade was in(a) livestock, (b) meat products and (c) all foodstuffs for the years since 1997; and what estimate she has made of how this will change as a result of foot and mouth export controls. [6500]

  Mr. Morley
  The tables show the value of UK trade in livestock, meat and meat products and total food, feed and drink between 1997 and 2000.

  The total food, feed and drink (including livestock) table also shows the value of exports of items over this period which are currently under foot and mouth disease export restrictions.

  Livestock

  £ million

  Trade/animal type

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Exports

  Cattle, sheep, pigs and goats

  49

  35

  29

  23

  Poultry

  43

  46

  50

  60

  Exports total

  92

  81

  79

  84

  Imports

  Cattle, sheep, pigs and goats

  25

  16

  17

  24

  Poultry

  5

  6

  5

  5

  Imports total

  30

  22

  22

  29

  Meat and meat products

  £ million

  Trade type/Meat and meat products

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Exports

  Red meat

  565

  456

  388

  386

  Red meat products

  45

  47

  34

  38

  Poultry and other meat

  205

  176

  164

  142

  Poultry and other meat products

  82

  59

  62

  61

  Exports total

  898

  738

  649

  627

  Imports

  Red meat

  1,332

  1,021

  1,113

  1,259

  Red meat products

  352

  339

  337

  382

  Poultry and other meat

  445

  521

  545

  539

  Poultry and other meat products

  162

  170

  200

  227

  Imports total

  2,291

  2,051

  2,195

  2,407

  Total food, feed and drink1

  £ million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Exports total

  10,016

  9,327

  9,074

  8,905

  Of which:

  Items currently under FMD export restrictions

  675

  566

  492

  477

  Imports total

  17,200

  17,220

  17,626

  17,176

  1 Including livestock

  1216W
  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department first received an offer from hunt staff to assist in the foot and mouth slaughter process; and when the first hunt slaughterman was engaged. [5351]

  Mr. Morley
  The Masters of Foxhounds Association contacted Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary officials in the first week of the outbreak. Their offer of help was passed to local disease control centres in order that hunt staff could be called upon if needed. Local hunt staff also directly contacted the disease control centres. The first hunt slaughtermen who were properly licensed were engaged at the end of March. Finding qualified slaughtermen was not generally a problem.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many reports her Department has received of(a) crows, (b) foxes and (c) other wildlife eating in the open carcases slaughtered because of foot and mouth. [5350]

  Mr. Morley
  On some occasions there has been evidence that predation of slaughtered carcases may have occurred. Instructions require carcases awaiting disposal to be, as far as is practicable, put beyond the reach of predators. Carcases are also sprayed with disinfectant which may act as a deterrent to scavengers. However, such animals can and do breach measures put in place to prevent such scavenging.

  Following confirmation of disease and slaughter an epidemiological inquiry is undertaken. One aspect of this is to consider possible routes of spread from the premises. Although it is a theoretical possibility that scavenging animals could spread infected carcase material to neighbouring stock, it is considered a much less likely source of infection when compared with other more direct routes of transfer and the overall risk is considered low. The rapid slaughter of affected stock remains the single most important factor in stopping production of virus.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to ensure that restrictions imposed on rural areas are lifted on a consistent basis. [6083]

  Mr. Morley
  The removal of movement restrictions on animals around infected premises is governed by EU rules. Other movement restrictions are applied on the basis of the disease status of a county or unitary authority or metropolitan district areas. Counties are reclassified when results of serological testing demonstrate disease freedom.

  Other restrictions are largely based on veterinary risk assessments which are published on the DEFRA website.

  This Department will continue to ensure that restrictions are applied and lifted on a consistent and proportionate basis. Significant progress is being made on the lifting of the restrictions on farming and other rural activities. Nine out of 10 footpaths are now re-opened. Cleansing and disinfection of farms continues and we are blood-testing animals throughout the country.
  1217W
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason restrictions are being maintained on farms around the Hallburn site, Longtown, Cumbria. [5345]

  Mr. Morley
  The farms around the Hallburn site were subject to protection zone restrictions due to their proximity to foot and mouth disease infected premises. However, these restrictions were lifted on 23 August 2001. Infected premises in the area remain under separate restriction while the final cleansing and disinfection process is taking place. Farms around the Hallburn site are still subject to the national restrictions on the movement of livestock.

  Cereals (EU Aid)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has applied for EU aid to the cereals sector; and if she will make a statement. [7445]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The UK Government have not applied for any EU aid for the cereals sector. An amount of optional agrimonetary compensation for the arable sector became available on 1 July 2001. We have until 31 October to inform the European Commission if we wish to make these payments.

  Milk Task Force
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Milk Task Force has resumed its considerations; and when it is expected to report. [7892]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]The Milk Task Force has now resumed its work and on 12 October it held its first meeting since its activities were suspended in April. The Milk Task Force hopes that it will be able to report quickly, but no specific deadlines have been set for it to complete its work.

  Peat Extraction
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps the Government are taking to protect UK peatlands; and if she will make a statement on the practice of peat extraction in the UK; [7776]

  (2) what action she will take with regard to the European Habitats Directive in order to exempt areas of the UK from the possibility of peat extraction.[7893]

  Mr. Meacher
  The best examples of peatland habitats in the UK are notified by the country nature conservation agencies as sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), or areas of special scientific interest in (ASSIs) in Northern Ireland. In England, peatland SSSIs are protected from damage through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, strengthened recently by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. In 1999 the UK Government endorsed the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for lowland raised bogs in which targets for restoration of damaged peatlands are set out. The BAP also contains targets for the replacement of peat in the UK horticultural industry, including supplies for amateur use—a reduction of 40 per cent. by 2005 and to 90 per cent. by 2010.
  1218W
  The EU Habitats Directive provides for the creation of a network of protected wildlife sites across the European Union. The UK has identified and forwarded to the European Commission 565 sites suitable for selection as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), thirty-eight of which feature a peatland habitat type. Sites in England receive the full protection offered by the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, implementing the directive's provisions. Minerals Planning Authorities (MPAs) have statutory responsibility to determine applications for permission to extract peat.

  Applications for new permissions, and extant permissions, must be assessed with regard to any potential effect peat extraction will have on the conservation status of candidate SACs, or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive. New permissions may be refused and extant permissions amended or revoked if an adverse effect is determined. Guidance to MPAs on criteria for selection and identification of acceptable sites for peat extraction is contained in Mineral Planning Guidance 13 'Guidelines for Peat Provision in England Including the Place for Alternative Materials'. Additional guidance on designated sites to MPAs is also given in Planning Policy Guidance 9 'Nature Conservation'.

  Food and Farming Policy Commission
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Policy Commission on Food and Farming is expected to make its recommendations. [7766]

  Mr. Morley
  As set out in the announcement of 9 August, the Prime Minister has asked the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food to report by the end of this year.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from Cambridgeshire in respect of the Rural White Paper. [6175]

  Alun Michael
  During the preparation of the Rural White Paper 16 of the 799 responses to the Discussion Document "Rural England" came from individuals and organisations in Cambridgeshire, including a number of district, town and parish councils and other public, private and voluntary sector bodies. Ministers and officials also received a number of other representations from individuals and organisations in Cambridgeshire in written and other forms both during and after publication of the White Paper.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of her Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7238]

  Mr. Morley
  The creation of DEFRA has brought together staff from the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: terms and conditions of employment for the new Department will need to be
  1219W
  negotiated. This will take account of a planned review of departmental policy on retirement age. Staff meanwhile retain their existing terms and conditions including retirement arrangements as described.

  For ex-MAFF staff including executive agencies, the age of retirement may vary according to grade and reckonable service. Staff in grades at Administrative Officer level and below may generally, subject to efficiency, remain in service until age 65. Staff in higher grades are required to retire at age 60, but a short service concession is available for staff who nave then served less than 20 years. Staff may also be retained past their retirement age for limited periods if, exceptionally, the Department's business needs justify it. Compulsory retirement before the normal age may exceptionally apply in circumstances of redundancy, restructuring or limited efficiency.

  DEFRA staff who were formerly attached to DETR retain their retirement arrangements. These are broadly similar to those for ex-MAFF staff, and for details I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), on 15 October 2001, Official Report, column 872W.

  Staff in the Intervention Board/Rural Payments Agency normally retire at age 60 but may be retained for an extended period (up to a maximum age of 65) dependent upon meeting standards of efficiency and upon the Agency's needs.

  The Department sponsors a considerable number of other public sector bodies, including 20 executive NDPBs. Information is not held centrally on their retirement arrangements and could be obtained only in the form requested at disproportionate cost.

  Livestock Movement Licences (Somerset)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for livestock movement licences were made in Somerset in the period 24 September to 4 October; and how many licences were issued in the same period. [7890]

  Mr. Morley
  Local authorities are responsible for issuing most animal movement licences. We understand from Somerset district council that during the period from 24 September to 4 October, 1,821 application forms (for farm to farm movements of livestock) were issued to Somerset farmers. Of these 780 were returned and 425 licences were issued. 92 applications were rejected by the Animal Movement Licensing System, 188 farmers withdrew their applications and 75 applications are awaiting approval.

  In addition, 1,227 licences for moving livestock for slaughter have been processed by Somerset local authorities/Trading Standards own system.

  Animal Movement Licences
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for animal movement licences are outstanding. [7775]
  1220W
  Mr. Morley
  Local authorities are responsible for issuing animal movement licences. But we understand that the backlog of outstanding applications varies between 0 and five days' workload, with the average being one day.

  Tenant Farmers
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met representatives of tenant farmers. [7724]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met tenant farmers' representatives since her appointment. However, the Department does maintain close contact with the tenanted sector. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State Lord Whitty met representatives from the Tenant Farmers Association on 16 July 2001 and my right hon. Friend is planning to meet them in the next few weeks.

  Overhead Powerlines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on the environmental implications of overhead powerlines; and if she will make a statement. [3847]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has received representations on the possible health effects of overhead lines. Overhead lines, however, remain a cost-effective and acceptable means for transferring power from producers to the consumer.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service Fast Stream
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the next report on recruitment to the fast stream of the civil service. [8269]

  Mr. Leslie
  In September I placed in the Library of the House the sixth annual report on recruitment to the fast stream of the civil service. It covers the results of competitions completed between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001.

  The report shows that the civil service is increasingly successful in attracting the best graduates, despite the highly competitive nature of the market, and is doing so while maintaining the high standard required of entrants. For the first time in several years, for instance, the service has filled all its vacancies for scientists and engineers. The proportion of graduates recruited to the fast stream from minority ethnic groups has risen from 3 per cent. in 1998–99 to 7 per cent. in 2000–01. The service's commitment to improving the diversity of the fast stream will continue.

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much it would cost to send a summary of the Government's annual report to each taxpayer. [7122]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Government have said they do not intend to publish an annual report.
  1221W
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will continue to publish an annual report from Government. [7121]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Government announced in July that they were considering whether to continue with the annual report in its current form. The 1222W
  Government will continue to report to Parliament and the public on its performance through a variety of means such as reports, statistical bulletins, ministerial statements and parliamentary questions. The information in the annual report was in any event a collation of existing, publicly available material and we have decided not to continue with it.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart
The Right Honourable Robert Adam Ross Maclennan, having been created Baron Maclennan of Rogart, of Rogart in Sutherland, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the Baroness Williams of Crosby.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth
Richard Arthur Lloyd Livsey, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Livsey of Talgarth, of Talgarth in the County of Powys, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Geraint and the Lord Carlile of Berriew.

Register of Lords' Interests
2.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked the Leader of the House:
Whether Lords of Appeal will be invited to attend the sub-committee convened to advise the registrar on registration of Lords' interests; whether a Lord of Appeal will preside; whether the decision of the registrar is subject to review by the courts and the European Court of Human Rights on compatibility with Articles 8 and 10 of the convention, and if so whether the sub-committee may receive representations by counsel and regulate its own procedures.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, there are four separate questions. The answers are: no, Lords of Appeal will not attend the sub-committee when it is advising the registrar; yes, the sub-committee is chaired by a Law Lord; no, the registrar's decision is not subject to review in the courts; and, no, the sub-committee may not receive representations by counsel although it is free to regulate its own procedures within limits.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as a matter of traditional courtesy I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for his reply. But, may I ask, if these suggestions, which to some noble Lords may appear to be manifestly reasonable in the interests of the House, are to be rejected, surely the Government would give some thought to the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, that there should be some joint decision on registration? Is it accepted by the Government that
472
ordained disclosure of private interests of spouses, relatives, friends, if it is disproportionate to the rights and freedoms of others—as, indeed, I suggest it is—is contrary to Article 8 of the convention and incompatible with it and also with Article 10 as interpreted by the Court of Human Rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord has proceeded on a misapprehension. The registrar will have the limited functions of giving advice to Members—that advice having been accepted is a perfect defence, as I have pointed out—and maintaining the register.
Of course, private and confidential matters will have to be disclosed, as your Lordships supported in the vote. Plainly, anything supported by your Lordships is not capable of being disproportionate.
This Chamber is not subject to the Human Rights Act conditions, but even if it were, there is nothing in the code in contradiction of Article 8 or any other article. It is an entirely proportionate step. In the context of family and friends, that has been the position for many years.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will remember that when he moved the Motion requiring Members of your Lordships' House to register their interests, he included the registration of our friends' interests. All of your Lordships have a wide range of friends, very few of whom are likely to affect our judgment very much. Will responsibility for deciding which friends' interests should be recorded rest on the registrar? If not, how will it be done?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, since I moved the Motion, I seem to have no friends at all. The answer is to be found in paragraph 12 of the code that we supported. It says in bold type that "relevant financial interests",
"may also include (depending on their significance) … the financial interests of a spouse or relative".
The quality of judgment is exactly the same as that presently exercised so admirably by all of your Lordships when deciding under the present regime, which has been in place since 1995.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that the concern about the registration of interests of friends is exaggerated and misplaced? Is it not correct that what has to be registered by a Member of your Lordships' House is not the interests that his friends would have to register for themselves if they were also Members of the House, but only those interests of friends that are so important that they might be seen as having an influence over the decision of the Member who is making the entry in the register?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Even the most cursory reading of paragraph 12 brings one inevitably to such a conclusion.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, do not the questions asked by my noble friends demonstrate that there is some confusion about how the register will work in practice? That view is shared not just by others in my party, but all round the House. Is it not wise, therefore, to look back on the words of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House? Will he repeat again that the register regime should always be interpreted with the very lightest touch?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I am always happy to repeat my own words with particular approval. It is all there in the code. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for pointing out paragraph 17 to him yet again. It says:
"The Registrar is available to advise Members of the House. A Member who acts on the advice of the Registrar … fully satisfies the requirements of the Code of Conduct".
It could not be simpler or lighter. The system is eminently workable and those in another place are looking with envy at the conclusion that we have arrived at.

Government Ministers: Special Advisers
2.57 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of special advisers working for Government Ministers.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, there are 81 special advisers working for UK Government Ministers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Has it been correctly reported that special advisers and Civil Service private secretaries have collectively been renamed "policy" advisers? Is it an accepted function of a special adviser to arrange for unpopular news to be released at a moment when it is likely to be smothered by news of events such as acts of terrorism and their consequences?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I confirm that the advisers in question are still known by the title of "special adviser". On occasions, some might be known as "special expert advisers". The noble Lord may be referring to the policy directorate in No. 10, for which many of them work. In answer to the second part of the question, I have seen no evidence to support any allegations that the Government have used the appalling events of 11th September to rush out difficult announcements. For example, the Home Secretary has made it clear that a difficult announcement relating to asylum seekers originally scheduled for 11th September was immediately delayed to avoid any such impression.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, what is the total cost to the Exchequer of special advisers in the past 12 months and what was the comparative cost of those employed by the previous Conservative administration?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the current figure of 81 special advisers compares with 79 under the last administration. The cost is about £4.4 million. I have no figures for the cost of special advisers under the previous administration, but I recall that it was mentioned in a debate in the House last year that the cost in 1991 was about £1.1 million.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I declare an interest as a founder member of the National Union of Special Advisers—a group of men and women, perhaps I may say, liberally represented on all Benches in this House. In that context, does the Minister agree that, given the political burdens on modern Ministers, the fact that they can carry out their political work with the aid of only two or three aides each is a remarkable miracle of productivity, not a source of criticism?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am ready to agree with my noble friend. I also cite the figures that Sir Richard Wilson quoted previously in saying that the 80 or so special advisers among the 3,500 members of the senior Civil Service, who lead 450,000 civil servants, do not constitute a threat to their integrity.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is growing genuine concern about the extent to which the difference between the interests of the Government as distinct from the party is becoming increasingly blurred? Can the noble Lord provide a definition of where the line is to be drawn?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is argued to the contrary by the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Richard Wilson, that the very existence of special advisers in many ways guarantees the impartiality of the Civil Service and its reputation by making a clear distinction between permanent civil servants and temporary civil servants who come in as special advisers. The latter are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants but they have the ability to represent Ministers on political matters. That is clearly understood and judged by many members of the Civil Service to be to its benefit.
Lord Roper: My Lords, although I accept that there are sufficient former special advisers on various Benches in this House to indicate that they have some value, does the noble Lord accept that some of the proceedings in recent weeks in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions have caused a good deal of concern? Is he satisfied that the revised code of conduct introduced after the general election is operating satisfactorily? Can he tell the House when we are likely to see the Civil Service Act, which we were promised at the election before last?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I believe that the code of conduct for special advisers brought

475
in by the Government after the election on the recommendation of the Neill committee has, indeed, now been fully applied. A large part of that is to the credit of this House and due to the arguments put forward for such a course of action.
As to the events of recent times in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, I know that Jo Moore made a statement in the past few minutes in which she said that, no matter how much she would wish to, she cannot take back the terrible error of judgment. However, she hopes that people will accept that her regret is genuine and heartfelt.
In relation to the question of bringing in legislation on the Civil Service, we are committed to such legislation and, as soon as the programme of business allows, we shall take it forward.
Lord Peston: My Lords, speaking as a former special adviser, perhaps I may say that, deplorable although Jo Moore's remarks were, she is not the first person to have got such matters wrong. As a former special adviser, I certainly got many things wrong. However, the advantage that I had in those days compared to now was that such information was not leaked. That difference is not unique to the present Government. Does my noble friend agree that the main point is that special advisers end up doing all the dirty work and speak to Ministers in ways that civil servants cannot? My experience was that special advisers were still working when the rest of the Civil Service had gone home.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I agree with the first of my noble friend's comments. I believe that I speak for Ministers and former Ministers on both sides of the House when I say how valuable special advisers can be, especially in difficult times.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has tabled a debate to be held next week on the subject of the ethic of public service? In that context, is he aware that Ms Moore is paid almost as much for a three-day week as the hard-working government Whips in this House are paid for a full-time job? Does he not believe that that is a complete distortion of the ethic of public service? Also in that context, does he share the widespread sense of shame and revulsion at the remarks made by Ms Moore in her memo?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as I stated in quoting Ms Moore, there is no doubt that she committed a serious error of judgment. She has accepted full responsibility for her action and has given a very full apology. She has been dealt with under the proper disciplinary procedures. It is the view of the Transport Secretary and the Prime Minister that someone should not lose their job for one such mistake and that it is time to move on. As for the relativities of the salaries involved, I believe that noble Lords will appreciate that many disparities exist within the pay scales of government. However, one consolation is that they are not quite as extreme as they are in the world of private business, from which the noble Lord and myself have come.

Schools: Private Sector Participation
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, under the proposed reforms for primary and secondary schools, private companies will be allowed to take over the running of a school with control over all staffing matters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we wish to encourage a diverse range of partners and providers. Private companies could propose to establish a new foundation or voluntary school, could work in partnership with schools to raise standards, could assist LEAs in turning round failing schools or could sponsor city academies. Similar opportunities will be available to community or faith groups, LEAs and other public and voluntary bodies. In all cases, staffing matters will be the responsibility of the governing body.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. She is saying that the private sector will not have the power to run a school, which must go hand in hand with having control over staffing. Do I read the noble Baroness correctly in that matter?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, having given considerable thought to the matter, it is our view that a school should be run by the governing body. In terms of the different types of school, which, as the noble Baroness will be fully aware, include voluntary aided, voluntary controlled schools and so on, the composition of the governing body is different. However, the relationship with a private organisation will be that of a consultancy more than that of a contractor. Therefore, such an organisation will not be responsible for the running of the school.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister clarify a point which is very obscure? Where a private company takes over a school, what role will the governing body have?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I pointed out, there are different ways in which private sector organisations can be involved in schools. We have tried to develop that to allow the private sector to play a full participatory role. Perhaps I may take as an example the Abbeylands School, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar, where Nord Anglia is currently working with the local education authority. The maximum number of governors that Nord Anglia would be able to have on that governing body would be six, assuming that it also took the governance of a foundation school. The difference between that and, for example, a city academy is that, as noble Lords will know, the latter allows for a foundation to be made where the private sector puts in 20 per cent of the

477
funding. In such cases, it would have a majority of governors on the governing body. That majority would be a small one in all cases, but it would be a majority. That is the difference.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the shortage of governors and the difficulty of recruiting them for some primary schools in London? What is being done to enable schools to support governors? It is reported that there is a clear lack of support, which is needed to make the system effective.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is indeed a shortage of school governors in all categories. We are concerned to ensure that the right number of governors is available. We estimate that on average each year a school gets 1,000 hours from its governing body. That means that being a governor is a huge commitment for people to make on an entirely voluntary basis. I am sure that noble Lords join me in paying tribute to governors all over the country.
We are considering several measures in this regard. One approach is to examine the ways in which we can support schools that find it particularly difficult to recruit governors in certain categories. We should establish whether local authorities would consider ensuring that governors were put into those schools that are in the greatest need, in the local authority's view, and helping parents to consider becoming governors by showing what kind of role they would play. The system might be moved away from the more traditional meeting format that has perhaps not previously inspired everyone. A raft of measures is available and I should be happy to discuss them further on another occasion.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation that she has just described in city academies, by which a private company could have a majority on the governing body, would discourage school governors from serving on those bodies, where they could easily be outvoted by vested interests? There is also the matter of the public accountability of such a governing body. How would that be managed?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, city academies have a strong relationship with local education authorities. We should not forget that that develops in areas in which LEAs are closely in touch and we should ensure that academies are put together appropriately. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that we have 13 partnerships currently working to establish city academies.
As for the majority of governors, it has never been my experience—the noble Baroness may have a different view—that people are discouraged from becoming a governor because they would be in a minority. Indeed, most categories are in a minority—I refer to a parent governor and an LEA governor, for example. It is important that the ethos and thrust of a school are maintained. As I said earlier, we must
478
ensure that with city academies the majority that is obtained is not substantial but that it enables the running of the school to be carried out appropriately.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one reason for the shortage of governors is that many people do not feel themselves fitted to be governors? The reason that they do not feel themselves fitted is that they are not fitted. What are the Government doing to fit people to be governors so that they can be effective?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, many noble Lords are definitely fit to be governors. If I were allowed to do so, I should take a straw poll to see how many of us are in fact governors. I believe that the question is, in a sense, the other way up—many people are fit to be a governor but they do not feel that it is a role for them. They may feel that way because they have a misunderstanding about what is required, because they believe that being a governor will take up a huge amount of their time or because they find the process and procedures very difficult to understand. Most people—certainly many parents, many of those who are involved in community life and many business people—should and will be encouraged to become governors, but it should be done on the basis that they understand what the role involves.

Provisional IRA and Terrorism
3.13 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the war against terrorism, whether they consider the Provisional IRA to be part of the international terrorist network.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): The Provisional IRA remains proscribed in this country as an illegal terrorist organisation even though it has been on ceasefire since 1997. The links that it is known to have had at various points over the past 30 years with overseas terrorist groups have always been a matter of concern. However, that does not alter the fact that the present peace process offers the best chance for generations finally to rid Northern Ireland of the scourge of politically motivated violence.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree with the recent remarks of Mr Gerry Adams, who said that the IRA contains not terrorists but freedom fighters?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, at the risk of upsetting the noble Viscount, I have to say that, frankly, I have nothing to add to my Answer.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hope that the Minister agrees that the concept of a freedom fighter who is fighting in a free society is a contradiction in terms. Will he tell the House what pressures he is

479
exerting on the Government of the United States, with whom we are very closely and properly allied in the war against terrorism, to persuade them that they really should take some action to restrict the flow of funds that have come steadily from that country through NORAID to the IRA or Sinn Fein in Ireland?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I say with the best will in the world that we are doing everything that we can to bring the peace process to a successful conclusion. Frankly, unwise words and comments will disturb that and I am not going to fall into the trap. We are determined to bring this to a successful conclusion. We have the best chance for a generation to get peace in Northern Ireland, and that is what we are working towards.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination public debate in this House could offend the efforts of the peace process. Is it not right for the Government to have declared war on terrorism? Are we now seeing the Government deciding that there is good terrorism and bad terrorism?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. Every noble Lord will understand that a peace process is under way in Northern Ireland. Asking me to comment on a particular phrase that has been gleaned from whatever part of the media and which was made by a particular person and expecting a substantive answer means, frankly, that one is not taking the peace process seriously. We are serious about getting a successful conclusion to this peace process; that remains the position. There is no stifling of open debate in this regard. Unlike other parts of the world, we have a peace process under way; that is the difference.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are grateful to a Conservative Prime Minister for initiating the peace process?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is not a one-party peace process. Of course it started under John Major. All credit is due to him and to all former Northern Ireland Secretaries of State, some of whom sit on different sides of this House, and to former Prime Ministers on both sides of the political divide in the United Kingdom. They tried their level best at that time to get peace in Northern Ireland. We are continuing that process.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask the Minister not to comment on that but to answer the question. What is being done to stop America providing funds to the terrorists? Will he please answer that question on behalf of the Government?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I return to the Question, which asks,
"In the light of the war against terrorism, whether they"—
that is, the Government—
"consider the Provisional IRA to be part of the international terrorist network".
480
I gave a substantive and considered Answer to that Question. The other matters are being dealt with through the normal machinery of government and with our allies and friends. We and our international friends are doing what we can to bring the peace process in Northern Ireland to a successful conclusion. I am very sorry if the noble Lord does not like my Answer but it is the best that I can give this afternoon.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, what is the present position regarding the declaration that the loyalist paramilitaries have broken the ceasefire? What is the purpose of this declaration in terms of upholding the peace process?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, John Reid, said last week, the organisations have been specified in the legislation. It so happens that no members of those organisations are currently being held. If there had been, their release would have been stopped. The provisions do not mean, as many mistakenly thought, that those who had been released and who were members of those organisations would automatically go back to prison. That will happen only if such people break the terms of their release agreement. That is the consequence of specifying those organisations. They are now out of the ceasefire process.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I stress to the Minister that we are asking only for a statement of fact. Two Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly are members of Sinn Fein/IRA, and one of them has at last just become a public member of the provisional council of the IRA. The Sinn Fein conference entertained ETA, a Basque terrorist organisation, at its previous conference. It has raised money and sought arms in Libya and Bosnia, and it has sent people to help to train terrorists in Colombia. We would look foolish in the eyes of the world, the eyes of Europe and, most of all, the eyes of the United States if we did not recognise, whatever the importance of the peace process, that this movement is a part of an international terrorist group. Surely those are facts.
The Government, I hope, are prepared to deal in facts. The peace process will not be helped by ignoring those facts and not remembering that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. The people in this movement wish to prevent that. They still have guns under the table and, indeed, above the table. They are still terrorising their own communities and exiling people. I am aware that I have spoken for too long. Can the Minister say whether the Provisional IRA should be regarded as an international terrorist organisation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in the middle of her reply, the noble Baroness used the words, "whatever the importance of the peace process", thus qualifying it. I made clear in my Answer that it has overriding importance in trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland. I also made clear that at various points over the past 30 years links with these groups have been a

481
matter of concern. However, that does not alter the fact that the importance of the present peace process is overriding. I do not qualify that. It is the best opportunity we have.

Business of the House: Access to Peers' Car Park
3.22 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Chief Whip offer an explanation for the continued restricted access to these premises?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who, with his customary courtesy, informed me of his intention to ask this Question. I should make clear that the Government have no locus in this matter, but I am happy to respond.
The work that has been carried out on the West Front of the House in the area of the Peers' car park in the Summer Recess is phase 2 of a three-phase project to create Old Palace Yard as a World Heritage square. Next summer will see the roadway restored. This summer's work should have been completed by 8th October 2001. Unannounced and unco-ordinated work to lay a gas pipeline by Transco along the pedestrian side of Old Palace Yard started shortly before the House rose for the Recess.
Accordingly, our contractors asked for and were granted two extra weeks to complete the pavement. The pavement work will be completed by 26th October; that is, at the end of next week. The car park is complete and provides 64 parking spaces, one more than before. I am sure that, had he been with us, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe would have been the first to congratulate the authorities of the House.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I make it clear that my Question involved no criticism of the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for his courtesy and for the Answer he has now given. However, does he find it embarrassing to agree on behalf of the Government that the continued mixture of sloppiness and bad manners on the part of those who run large organisations such as Transco is greatly to be regretted? It would be a welcome change and an example if they were to determine from now on to treat the public with greater consideration and rudimentary good manners.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not in the least embarrassed to agree, not on behalf of the Government but on behalf of the House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the much lamented Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. At the risk of my noble friend having a heart attack, perhaps I may ask him to accept that I now realise, having looked at the car park, that when I intervened before
482
on this subject I was mistaken. It seems to me that for once the authorities of the House have done something right, which is why I risked the heart attack.
I do not know what message Lord Cocks is sending down to me from Heaven, but I have to confess that the car park looks more attractive and appears to be more efficient in terms of parking. I regard that as miraculous, which is why I felt I should intervene.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, no point is raised about the car park. My point relates to the delay caused by Transco's operation.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as Chief Whip, I cannot respond without referring to the fact that my noble friend voted for reference back to the sub-committee. We then recommended the scheme and the House supported it. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend of the biblical injunction that good works precede redemption.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Consent]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
The noble Lord said: It falls to me to conduct the usual brief waffle while Members remove themselves in preference to listening to this most important debate which is of wide public interest. This is the third time we have debated amendments to Part 1 of the Bill. Before the general election we had Committee stage and dealt with Part 1 on Report. We now return, for the third time, to deal with the amendments to Part 1.
However, the fact that we have already debated amendments to the Bill at some length means that it is possible to cut back on the number of amendments that are to be debated. Those which have been raised merely for the point of discussion and have been dealt with will not come back again. We, on these Benches, have cut back on the number of amendments that we have tabled to the Bill as compared to those we moved in debate on its predecessor. We raise only those issues which we regard as significant.
It is now possible for me to become more substantive. In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 191. The amendments try to deal with the problem which arises when a majority of leaseholders of an existing property wish to convert that property to commonhold but their wishes are being frustrated by a small minority of leaseholders, which for instance, may be no more than one single leaseholder in a block, however large.
At Second Reading, before the Summer Recess, it was suggested that if we were able to propose something of sufficient interest and workability, the Government might consider it. We have proposed what we believe is a workable solution to the problems, at least in part, although we believe that the problems cannot be solved altogether.
We believe that our amendments provide a way of enabling a majority of leaseholders to enfranchise where at least 80 per cent of the leaseholders of units in an existing building support the conversion to commonhold. Therefore, our proposal, if enacted, would mean that there would be a conversion to commonhold where 80 per cent of the leaseholders support that proposal and that 80 per cent already hold the freehold or can obtain it by collective enfranchisement. The key to our proposals is that the position of the existing leaseholders is, by and large, left untouched. That is important, because a majority of leaseholders should not have the right to force a minority to find the money to buy into the freehold themselves or else have to surrender the flat in exchange.
There are three different formulae in our amendments and the other amendments that are grouped with them. One is ours; one is that of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; and one is that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
We have some difficulty with Amendments Nos. 7, 19 and 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. That is because they would result in a leaseholder who, against the wishes of the majority, did not support conversion having his or her lease extinguished; and though he or she would be entitled to compensation, we do not regard that as an acceptable solution.
The Williams/Caithness amendments, if I may call them that, operate in a similar way to ours. I therefore hope that at Report stage we may be able to arrive at a joint formula, because I believe that there is very little difference between us.
However, there is one difference between our amendments and the Williams/Caithness amendments. Our Amendment No. 191 gives a leaseholder a right to buy into the commonhold at any time. In order to encourage the leaseholder to do that, we propose that the leaseholder would lose the alternative right, which he or she now enjoys, to an extended lease. We accept that that form of conversion creates some problems, because about 80 per cent of leaseholders who wish to convert will have to buy 100 per cent of the freehold, if they do not already own it. To some extent, that may make conversion on an 80 per cent majority basis more
484
expensive and less attractive. But we can see no way round that, without requiring the minority leaseholders to convert to commonhold against their will or lose their flats.
Our amendments are relatively simple. We believe that they are workable. I do not suggest that their drafting is perfect. However, they form the basis of a workable and effective draft. In our view, they will do no harm; they will not force anyone out of his or her existing flat; they will not require anyone to pay more money without consent; and they will do good in a number of cases, particularly in the case of relatively small units—perhaps a single house containing five different flats, perhaps a small block containing between five and 10 flats. Where the great majority of leaseholders in those cases wish to convert, it will then be possible for them to do so.
Ours is not a very complicated proposal. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it in principle. I am sure that they will wish to redraft it. I would not expect them to do so before the Bill finishes its passage through your Lordships' House, but there is no urgency to introduce it in the other place, and a delay before it moves to the other place could allow the Government time to do the necessary drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for recognising that there is little difference between his amendment and that tabled by me and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
Those of us who sat through the five thrilling days of Grand Committee discussions—and I welcome new colleagues on the Front Bench, as well as old colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—will recognise that there was a general feeling in that Committee, and I hope also in this Committee, that we are trying to encourage commonhold to become something other than a formula for new builds. That is the principle from which we start.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has quite rightly said that our amendment is very similar to his. I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave us a little chink of light at Second Reading that if we could find a formula that will not infringe the human rights of leaseholders who might remain under commonhold, and yet will allow a decision to go to commonhold on less than 100 per cent of the vote of leaseholders, the Government might be prepared to consider it. I submit that that would be achieved by our amendment.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said. We argued many of these points in Grand Committee during the passage of the previous Bill. I apologise to my noble friends on the Government Front Bench for the fact that a number of my amendments were tabled during the Recess and were a rerun of some that we had discussed in Grand Committee. I shall therefore not speak about them at great length. Nevertheless, this particular argument is not likely to go away.

485
If the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I can get together on Report—and I apologise for the noble Earl's absence; he is in the United States of America but will be back at Report stage and find what I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to as an all-party agreement that may satisfy this Committee and the other place, I hope that the Government will consider it. That is the intention of all those who will speak to this group of amendments. I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lady Scotland, whom I welcome to these arcane discussions, will feel able to offer us some reasonable encouragement.
Lord Kingsland: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated, I have four amendments in this group, of a somewhat more technical nature than his, and I crave the indulgence of the Committee to allow me to devote a little time to each of them. I accept that there are incompatibilities between my amendments and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. I also accept that should he win the day and I lose it, I shall, of course, have to accept that. The fact that my amendments are incompatible with his amendment does not mean to say that I think his has no merit.
I speak first to Amendment No. 7. As printed on 20th December 2000, Clause 3(1) of the Bill required, in addition to the consents of those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d), the consent of,
"the registered proprietor of an interest in the whole or any part of the land".
That provision was removed as a result of an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord asked:
"why on earth is it necessary to get the consent of a registered proprietor of an interest over the land if that interest is not affected?".—[Official Report, 20/2/01; col. CWH 4.]
He gave the example of a neighbour's easement of drainage over commonhold land.
However, there may be interests in relation to land, the subject of an application to register as commonhold, which should not be ignored, even if they are not protected by registration—such as rights of persons in actual occupation of land, which are overriding interests under Section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. They may include, for example, the claim of an occupier to a beneficial interest in the land by reason of a contribution to the purchase price; or the right of the wife, prevailed upon perhaps by her improvident husband to convey or charge her interest in the matrimonial home, to set aside the conveyance or charge because of his undue influence.
It seems only right to take steps to see that such cases, which often arise in practice, are not overlooked before an application is made under Clause 2. That would seem to be especially important if Clause 6, which deals with registration in error, becomes law in its present form. Under Clause 6, the power to correct errors in registration is limited to the cases mentioned in subsection (1) and the general power to rectify under Section 82(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925 is
486
excluded by Clause 6(2). At the same time, I entirely accept that one does not wish it to be easy for trivial or spurious claims to block applications. I suggest that the proposed new subsection (1)(e) strikes a reasonable balance between these two considerations.
The second part of the amendment adds a proviso to Clause 3(1) of the Bill. During the Second Reading of the Bill in January, and in Grand Committee on 29th February 2001, the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Richard and Lord Williams of Elvel, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, expressed doubts about the requirement for 100 per cent to convert to commonhold. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sought to justify it on the ground that otherwise one would have "anomalous leaseholders remaining".
Clause 3 as drafted is somewhat Delphic about that point. Subsection (1) lays down the 100 per cent requirement and subsection (2) provides that regulations may provide inter alia,
"(e) for consent to be deemed to have been given in specified circumstances".
and,
"(f) enabling a court to dispense with a requirement for consent in specified circumstances".
These provisions are clearly intended—clearly intended—to allow the 100 per cent requirement to be "got round" in certain circumstances. But those circumstances are nowhere specified in the Bill; nor are they dealt with in the Explanatory Notes.
In my submission, one should take account of the criticism of the 100 per cent requirement and in clear terms reduce it in the text of the Bill to, say, 80 per cent. But 80 per cent of what? It is suggested that the total floor or surface area may be an easier-to-use and a fairer yardstick than the number of units or parcels. The latter may vary widely in size and the assortment of estates, interests, claims and rights, mentioned in Clause 3(1), may not coincide with units of accommodation. For example, they could include rights over part of a unit, or part of several units, or the common parts of a building.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was concerned about the dimension of expropriation. But it is true that, for example, in the world of takeover an acquisition of 90 per cent of a shareholding is sufficient to require the other 10 per cent to yield. Has the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reflected carefully on that and come to the conclusion that the parallel is not an exact one in the case of leasehold property?
Lord Goodhart: Does the noble Lord agree that there is a real difference between giving up a small shareholding where 90 per cent concurred in the takeover, which has no substantial effect on the share owner, apart from converting those shares into cash, and on the other hand being forced to give up the right to a leasehold property which may well be that person's home?
Lord Kingsland: I accept that there are differences in character but I am not sure that I accept that there is a fundamental difference, provided that compensation is prompt and full.
I turn to Amendment No. 10 and I can be extremely telegraphic—to use a favourite expression of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. These changes supplement those proposed for subsection (1). The proposed subsection (2)(g) is intended to ensure that notice of an application comes to the attention of persons in actual occupation of land who otherwise might not find out about it. Paragraph (h) supplements the proviso to subsection (1). The power to dispense with a consent under the proviso could be exercised under subsection (2)(f).
As regards Amendment No. 19, for reasons similar to those put forward in relation to the extinguishment of charges under Clause 27, the provisions for compensation should be extended to cover any landlord, not just the landlord of an inferior lease, whose lease is extinguished on registration of a freehold estate in commonhold land.
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Many Members of the Committee who are present today will carry a distinct feeling of déjà vu. As my noble friend Lord Williams noted, with the exception of my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who has already been through the valley of the shadow with Members during Committee and Report stages on the previous Bill, my colleagues and I on the Government Front Bench come to this topic fresh and full of what I hope will be infectious enthusiasm.
We in the government team who have been developing the Bill have come to think of a number of the amendments on the Marshalled List as old friends. I suspect that the answers which the Government give to many of them will fall into a similar category. That is not because we are being obdurate for the sake of obduracy. On the whole, we believe that the Bill as it appears is in good order and we have got it about right. That has been achieved with a great deal of help and work from all Members present through the Grand Committee and we thank them for that hard and industrious work.
It would be foolish to suggest that there is no room at all for improvement and it may be that we will be able to react positively to appropriate amendments on this occasion as we did previously. However, having accepted a number of amendments last time, the scope for further amendment now is rather more limited. The first group of amendments is a particular case in point.
We empathise with the purpose behind the amendments and the concerns of the Committee in relation to it. This issue is one over which we have struggled long and hard. The group brings together all those amendments which set out to amend the rule that the Government have developed which requires that 100 per cent of those with a substantial interest in land
488
to be registered as commonhold land should be required to express their consent to the registration. These would include the freeholder, who must either give consent or have his interest bought out, anyone who holds a lease granted for a period of 21 years or more and others such as those holding certain charges over all or part of the land. That is laudable, but the question for us is whether it is achievable. Our intention in imposing the rule was to ensure that the process of converting to commonhold should be as straightforward as possible and that the management of newly-established commonholds should not be complicated by the existence of more than one class of interest in the units comprising the commonhold.
As I am aware that I am about to disappoint a number of noble Lords, with the indulgence of the Committee I should like to explain in some detail our thinking on this matter. We believe that we may not have articulated as clearly as we might why we are so keen to implement the 100 per cent rule and neither have we exposed our rationale in sufficient detail. This is a difficult area. We have never believed that it would be impossible to devise a system to provide for the conversion of a leasehold to commonhold with fewer than 100 per cent consents of the classes that we have specified. Indeed, the Bill developed by noble Lords opposite in 1996 when they were in government proposed just such a scheme. Today, Members of the Committee have, in varying degrees of detail, suggested ways toward that end. However, our view is that, although it is perhaps possible, such a scheme would be very complex and thoroughly undesirable, and at Second Reading my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor signalled as much.
I set out our reasoning We recognise only too well that to obtain 100 per cent of the necessary consents will be difficult, notwithstanding that the courts will be able to dispense with consents where obtaining them proves to be impossible, for example where a leaseholder cannot be traced. That was the example we had in mind in relation to Clause 3(2)(f) to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred. However, we believe that the difficulties which would follow from the alternative of allowing conversion with a margin of non-participants of whatever size would far outweigh any conceivable advantages, and that, given the content of Part 2 of the Bill, it is unnecessary.
Both this and previous governments have undertaken to provide for conversion from leasehold to commonhold, but the circumstances are now very different from those which obtained in 1996. Part 2 of the Bill makes available a much more straightforward way to achieve collective enfranchisement for those who are eager to own the freehold of their development than was available when the opposition's Bill was developed and conversion to commonhold was seen by many as the only viable alternative to being caught in the long leasehold trap.
We have given a good deal of consideration to the process of conversion to commonhold. How will it work? We believe that the urge to convert is most likely to occur among those who have not yet taken advantage of the right to enfranchise. If it proves

489
impossible to persuade 100 per cent of the occupants of the existing development to come on board it will be necessary for those who do consent to find the extra money needed to buy out the freeholder's interest in the non-converting units. It will then be necessary either to set up a separate company to hold the freehold of the continuing leasehold flats or, perhaps more likely, make it possible for the commonhold association to do so. The extra work and costs, including legal costs, could be considerable.
Consideration would have to be given to possible amendment of the remaining leases. The memorandum and articles of association of the commonhold association would have to be altered to take account of the ownership and management of the freehold of those units and direct relations with the leaseholders thereof. The commonhold community statement would have to take into account the distinction between commonhold units and non-consenting units and the differential management tasks. To tailor-make the documents and structures that they reflected would not only add considerably to the costs of the conversion process but fly in the face of the thinking behind commonhold, which the Committee recalls is based firmly on parity of interest and uniformity of structure and standardisation, so far as possible, of the documentation.
I was much relieved and reassured that when the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, outlined his arguments in support of the amendment he acknowledged that problems and difficulties remained to be dealt with. It should also be noted that the original consenters will no doubt expect to recoup the extra costs arising from the conversion process and that will tend to mean either that the selling price per unit is higher than is otherwise justifiable, rendering the units relatively poor value for money, or that the extra costs just cannot be recouped in the short or even medium term.
But the difficulties that arise on conversion are just the start of the potential problems. The management of the resulting organisation, which we expect to be carried out by volunteers as the Committee will recall, will become a great deal more difficult. In addition to running the commonhold association, which despite the efforts we have made to keep it simple will still be a responsible job that requires a mix of skills, including a fair degree of diplomacy, the directors will become landlords. Their leaseholders will be the continuing leaseholders who may already be disgruntled by the conversion process in which they did not take part, for whatever reason, and through which they have been dragged against their will. They may also have had to undergo amendment to their leases or entered into disputes about the value of their remaining interest, particularly if they are not allowed to apply for lease extensions at the end of the lease period.
Inevitably, they will now be in a less favourable position than the unit-holders who are part of the commonhold in terms of both the day-to-day running of the development and the sale of the unexpired portion of their leases in due course. The full members of the commonhold may well find that their own units
490
are worth less than those in a comparable development which does not include continuing leaseholders, and all this before the all-too-common disputes arise between landlord and tenant. Therefore, that arises even before one encounters the normal difficulties in human relationships that those of us who travel down this road know only too well. Those matters will be settled by the machinery provided for the purpose in existing leasehold law rather than the streamlined processes that we hope will apply to commonhold.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. It is very important to get the language right. In Grand Committee Members were told that it was impossible to have less than 100 per cent for commonhold except under extraordinary circumstances. Am I right in understanding my noble friend to say that it is perfectly possible to have existing leaseholders under a commonhold association and the problem is one of expense, complication and difficulty?
4 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The issue is not whether it is possible, but whether, bearing in mind all the abreactions which will flow from it, it is desirable and preserves the essence of what commonhold is supposed to be. We considered fully if we could preserve the essence of what we all want from commonhold and retain that as well as having less than 80 per cent and whether there was any other way that that could be done. We reluctantly concluded that even if technically it was possible to construct something that was less than 100 per cent, it would not, because of the consequences, the complexities and the difficulties, be practical to do so because we would not have commonhold occurring as we all want it to; that is, with parity, equality and people working together in a scheme in which they all share an equal part.
The unit holders have their rights under the Act arising, as I said earlier, from their obligation to belong to the commonhold association as members and thus participate in all the important decisions relating to the management of the development, as well as having a freehold interest in their commonhold unit. Leaseholders will not have those rights. Their interest will continue to be time limited by the term of their lease, and it will almost certainly be necessary to curtail their rights to apply for lease extensions. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. We recognised that. We suggested that there would be a curtailment of rights for an extended lease but that the conversion of the whole block into commonhold would be accelerated because there would be a right to buy into the commonhold at any time until the unextended end of the lease.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We understand that that is what the noble Lord intended. As I said earlier, we would then be left in a situation where the leaseholders would have a less advantageous position

491
in being a leasehold part of a commonhold than they would have in an ordinary leasehold situation. There they would be entitled to become an enfranchised leaseholder under Part 2 of the Bill. That is why we say that one has commonhold on one hand and then the opportunities that are available to become an enfranchised leaseholder on the other, so that where one cannot get 100 per cent agreement there are still opportunities for enfranchisement under Part 2. One has to see both parts of the Bill acting together.
The previous difficulty was that the route to enfranchising leaseholders was seen only to be commonhold. Now we have an alternative. That is why we should like to preserve the purity of the commonhold. It will not just be available for new builds; it will be available to meet the needs of current properties where the occupiers are in agreement.
The commonhold association will be required to manage the common parts under the terms of the commonhold community statement and the memorandum and articles of association, and to set budgets and collect assessments from the unit holders. In circumstances where there are continuing leaseholders, it will also have to set levels of service charges for the leaseholders who will not, because of their minority position, be able to take advantage of the provisions relating to service charges and management stemming from Part 2 of the Bill.
There will be two different classes of occupant with two streams of management under two different statutory regimes. There will be two different sets of moneys to collect with two sets of accounts to produce and potentially almost an infinity of different tailor-made schemes to design and operate. They will bring with them the potential for the kind of drafting problems which have helped to bring leases into disrepute. Perhaps most importantly, there will be the medium to long-term preservation of long leasehold properties. I should not like Members of the Committee to think that that would be seen as a cunning plan to keep even more of we lawyers in good, robust, long-term employment
I hope that I have illustrated why, despite the difficulties inherent in obtaining 100 per cent of the relevant consents, the Government hold to their view that it is the right way to proceed. I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not recall from looking at any of the documents or from what was said in Grand Committee that the Government have ever said that it was impossible to do. I think that the Government made clear that it was undesirable.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I thank the Minister for giving way. My recollection is that my noble friend Lord Bach said that it was not wholly impossible, but most unlikely that existing builds would convert to commonhold.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I obviously take that from my noble friend. I do not think that I have said anything inconsistent today. It is possible. Whether it is practical or desirable is another matter.
492
As I said earlier, none of the difficulties that I have mentioned is insuperable. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated at Second Reading, the Government, although sceptical about the prospects, would be prepared to consider well judged amendments that successfully addressed the many difficulties that I have outlined. I am afraid that none of the amendments before us today meets my noble and learned friend's test. Perhaps I may explain why in more detail.
The amendments put down on this topic provide us, as noble Lords have indicated, with four schemes to displace the 100 per cent rule. Those put down by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, outline the kernel of a workable scheme to provide for conversion with less than 100 per cent consent. Unfortunately, though it goes some way to setting up the machinery to do it, the proposal does not overcome the serious problems that I have outlined. The commonhold association would be the owner of the freehold and thus the landlord of the continuing leaseholders, with what we believe to be the almost inescapable problems that that would bring. Leases could be exchanged for commonhold unit status at any time subject to payment of a price and to other terms which would almost certainly lead to friction between the leaseholder and the commonhold association. The lease could not be extended, and at the end of its term would revert to the commonhold association who would sell it and retain the proceeds of sale for its own benefit. The extent to which these funds would benefit the recently converted leaseholders might be a cause of friction with those who paid for their commonhold status upfront. The amendments represent the beginning of a journey to a destination which we truly believe that no one, on mature consideration, would want to reach.
The amendments put down by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Williams give us the same difficulties as they did previously. The first of their amendments seeks to insert the words,
"at least 80 per cent of the following classes of person".
As we noted on the last occasion when we debated the matter, there are five such classes of persons set out in Clause 3(1), and the wording of the amendment is ambiguous as to what is actually intended. The intention is, of course, to overcome the 100 per cent rule, but the detail is lacking. It makes it very difficult to discern more than the very bare outline of a scheme. I absolutely empathise and understand why that is so, but it creates an insurmountable difficulty. Certainly there is nothing to suggest how the difficulties that I have previously outlined might be addressed. We are also confronted again with the proposition that the votes of the 20 per cent who either did not vote or who voted against the conversion shall be overturned by tribunal decision. As my noble friend Lord Bach then said, we can think of no tribunal or court in this jurisdiction which would welcome legislation directing it to come to a particular decision, presumably regardless of any pertinent evidence. I am afraid that these amendments would not result in a workable scheme for conversion with less than 100 per cent

493
consents. Nor would they provide a way of managing the resultant organisation in a way that would provide the occupants with a stable and reliable home environment.
Perhaps I may turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. With his usual style, the noble Lord has provided us with no fewer than two schemes to overcome the 100 per cent rule. The first we saw last time and is based on an exemption for owners of up to 20 per cent of the total surface area of the land in relation to which the application is being made. I am afraid that it suffers from the same inability to overcome the problems that we foresee for the converters and for the subsequent management of the development.
The noble Lord's second scheme would allow conversion without a majority in favour. I suppose that it is just conceivable that half of the long leaseholders might want to buy out the landlord's interest in all the flats in a development. However, the scheme proposed would give any number of objectors amounting to over 10 per cent of the total an effective veto by allowing them to take their objections to court. Even if they were not successful in their challenge, there would be inevitable costs to be met for both sides. The scheme seems to us to set up the largest potential for difficulty both in terms of the conversion process and for future management.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 19 and 33 in the grouping. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, may accept that he has tabled amendments which appear to contradict his obvious earlier intention to make conversion easier than it might be if the 100 per cent rule were to prevail. The first amendment provides that where leases are to be extinguished under Clause 7(3)(d) or 9(3)(f), all leaseholders should have an opportunity to consent or to be fairly compensated. The county court is given jurisdiction to decide in disputed matters regardless of quantum. The Bill at present requires a registered leaseholder to consent and to be liable to an inferior leaseholder for any loss suffered. It is not by any means clear what the amendments would add other than, I respectfully suggest, a degree of duplication and additional complexity.
To give inferior leaseholders, who in our scheme are entitled to be compensated for their loss but whose consent is not required and thus cannot hold up conversion by withholding it, the right to give or withhold consent would add tremendously to the difficulties in practice of achieving conversion. Nor is it clear how the decision would be made as to whether any particular leaseholder was to be given the right to consent or merely to be compensated.
Amendment No. 33 provides for chargees to consent to the extinguishment of charges over land which is to become part of the common parts. The Bill already provides for such consent by registered chargees in Clause 3. The arrangements made between the applicant for registration and the chargees as to compensation or the substitution of security appear to be matters that should be sorted out between them.
494
I am afraid that, in our view, these amendments are also defective in almost every respect, achieving, if they would in fact achieve anything, the basis of schemes which would be expensive and unwieldy to achieve and next to impossible to manage.
Perhaps I may finish by suggesting that the obvious and preferable alternative for those, where they comprise the majority, who wish to take control of their own developments on the basis of unequal interests where some are unwilling or unable to participate on the commonhold basis of parity of interest, is to take advantage of the new and much improved scheme for collective enfranchisement provided by Part 2 of the Bill, to which I referred earlier. I know that my noble friend who sits on the Front Bench will be only too anxious to delight noble Lords with the detail of those provisions later this evening.
Although the end result will not be commonhold, the practical application of the new scheme will allow participating leaseholders to come as close to a freehold interest as is possible by giving them the opportunity to take control of their freehold via a holding company, to grant themselves very long leases, and to have the final say in the management of their developments. I respectfully suggest that the enfranchisement scheme is itself tailor-made for circumstances in which fewer than 100 per cent of the occupants of the development consent. Furthermore, the scheme takes the interests of the minority fully into account.
We believe that collective enfranchisement is the route for those unable to achieve the 100 per cent consents required to convert to "pure" commonhold. I hope that I have now said enough, and at great length, to convince noble Lords that the hybrid of commonhold with non-consenting leaseholders would be a vitiated scheme, having neither the advantages of commonhold for the unit holders nor the advantages of enfranchisement for the leaseholders.
I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw their amendments, although it is with a degree of sadness that I have to impart such news to Members of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: I lack the erudition of many other speakers in our debate, but I now have the honour of being, while still confused, confused at a much higher level. On the one hand, we have a government who have universal support for the introduction of commonhold for new and existing developments. Amendments have been tabled from all sides of the Committee which seek to encourage the conversion to commonhold of existing buildings. The Government have said in response, "Yes, we like the principle, but we shall make it rather difficult, if not impossible, so to do". So the leasehold situation with existing buildings will run for 125 or perhaps even 149 years.
I had thought of tabling a series of amendments at this stage, but I have decided to do that only when we reach Report stage. That is because I believe that there

495
are solutions to the basic fault here. As drafted, the legislation assumes that there will be parties who will not approve of the concept of commonhold. Those parties could comprise existing tenants with either short or long leases, head lessors, banks with mortgages on buildings or the freeholder himself.
The properties involved fall into two groups. In general most of the properties comprise semi-detached or terraced buildings in London, Brighton or Hove, often containing no more than 10 flats or perhaps as few as six flats. The other group is made up of newer developments which may hold as many as 50 or more separate flats. Over the past two years, it has become apparent that, when most proposals are considered, there will be at least one in five who will object; namely, a 20 per cent objection rate. For that reason, I support the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
However, let us consider what would take place were the following situation to emerge. In a building comprising five flats, two-thirds wish to enfranchise and qualify under the existing legislation, half wishing to go ahead. Those who do not wish to go ahead will probably say something like, "We do not wish to go ahead". However, the underlying reason for that decision may be that they wish to leave their properties to their estates without creating increased value, or that they cannot afford it and do not want to court the shame of admitting that they cannot produce the large amounts of money required. The remaining four flats find that they cannot easily finance the purchase of the last property. The reason that they cannot do so is partly because banks will not lend mortgage money on such properties to a company; they will lend only to an individual. Thus the cost and the difficulties of securing long-term funds are increased. However, let us suppose that into the breach comes the freeholder who owns the freehold and is willing to permit enfranchisement and the conversion to commonhold. Why should it not be possible for that freeholder to retain one commonhold interest with a sub-tenant for a while, if he wishes to do that voluntarily? As I have said, many solutions can be put forward to this problem.
I am afraid that I have made a mistake. Following the new Williams code, I should have declared my interests at the start of my remarks. When I last spoke on this subject, I had already helped on enfranchisement and had no interest. Now, in consultation with members of my family and friends, I believe that I may have as many as 200 or 300 interests to disclose concerning friends who may be involved. Furthermore, I am a director of a publicly quoted construction company that has consulted with the Lord Chancellor on commonhold. I am somewhat over advised, but I am advised by practical people. Indeed, my current advice to those who may wish to become involved in all this is as follows: please do not consult with your lawyers until 24 hours before you intend to complete, because by doing so you may not be charged for more than 24 hours of expensive time.
496
If the noble Baroness would be willing to say that she has not got it right, my noble friend has not got it right and that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has not got it right, but that altogether and collectively noble Lords have got it wrong, amendments tabled on Report may put forward a number of voluntary proposals to which it would be worth listening.
Lord Richard: I start by declaring an interest as chairman of LEASE, the leasehold advisory service.
I am disappointed by the reply of my noble friend the Minister. She said that she came fresh to it. I am sure that is true. When she said that, I was reminded of the story of the late Lord Hailsham, who once came back from a weekend to his ministerial office with his red boxes. He passed them to civil servants, who opened them and discovered that they had remained for the whole weekend in the same state as they had been when he had left on Friday evening. When his private secretary remonstrated with him, he said, "No, no. Better fresh than briefed". It occurred to me that my noble friend may be fresh, but I am not quite sure how well briefed she has been on this particular point.
I want to look at the practicalities of the issue. Everyone seems to be agreed that the chances of getting 100 per cent in virtually any given set of circumstances is extremely small. Indeed, in Grand Committee, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said, the government view then was that it was almost impossible. If that is so, then the structure of the Bill seems to me to be quite wrong.
On a number of occasions today, my noble friend was selling collective enfranchisement as the alternative to commonhold. It may be in certain circumstances, in which case I am surprised that the Government have not produced a Bill in which commonhold is confined to new builds—because that will be its practical effect—and leasehold and collective enfranchisement are available for other blocks of flats which are already standing.
Secondly, my noble friend has moved the Government's position slightly. It is no longer impossible to do it at 80 per cent, but it is now undesirable and very complicated. Both of those seem to me to be matters of judgment. It would be complicated certainly, but the question surely is whether the complications that would arise are worth putting up with in order to achieve an extension of the commonhold principle. I would have thought that it is not beyond the wit of man—and certainly not beyond the wit of the Lord Chancellor and his advisers—to produce something, which could come to the House on Report, that took account of that particular principle. I am not in favour of confining commonhold to 100 per cent. Frankly, it makes nonsense of the whole concept.
Finally, I say to my noble friend that if the Bill works out in a way whereby commonhold will be confined to new builds and collective enfranchisement will be available for anyone else, then it has been grossly

497
oversold. That is not the view of the general public and it is not the view of a number of tenants who ring up or write in to LEASE, and that is a great pity.
Lord Goodhart: The disarming manner of the Minister has sugared what is, I am afraid, in all other respects, a disappointingly bitter pill. I am very sorry that the Government have not found themselves able to move on this issue. That view is shared by all of those who have spoken on the amendment from all sides of the House.
The main argument on which the noble Baroness relied is that you do not need to have commonhold in these situations because you can get almost all the benefits you need from collective enfranchisement. I do not regard that as true.
In the first place, many—indeed, most—of the problems outlined by the noble Baroness as applying to commonholds where some of the units were held on leasehold also apply to cases of collective enfranchisement. There are exactly the same difficulties and possible conflicts of interest in the case of collective enfranchisement where you have some of the leaseholders who are also owners through being members of the RTE company on the one hand, and the remaining leaseholders who are not members of the RTE company on the other. As I see it, that is exactly the same as the problems that would arise—I accept that they would arise—if you went one step further and converted the RTE company into a commonhold.
Indeed, there is one serious problem with RTE companies which would be avoided by taking the further step and moving on to commonhold. Unless the Government are minded to accept an amendment which we have tabled for a later stage of the Bill, there will be no necessary and automatic link between holding a lease on a building which is owned by an RTE company and being a member of that company. In other words, if a leaseholder takes part in collective enfranchisement, as the Bill now stands that leaseholder can assign the lease but it does not automatically follow that the assignee will become a member of the RTE company; the assignor may remain a member of the RTE company. The effect of that is that there will be, potentially, an increasing severance between ownership of a property and residence there, or the ownership of a lease there. That is something which, in the longer run, will cause serious difficulties. It is something we shall have to go into when we get to our amendment in due course; it is not part of this group.
There is a considerable advantage in having the indissoluble link between ownership of the unit and membership of the commonhold association in the case of commonhold. That is one reason why it is desirable that it should be made possible to move on from collective enfranchisement—which will often be necessary as the first step in the process—to converting the property into a commonhold.
498
As we recognise, there are arguments of expense because you will have less than 100 per cent of the leaseholders buying the freehold. But exactly the same situation arises on collective enfranchisement as arises on conversion into a commonhold. Although collective enfranchisement will certainly be helpful, we see no reason why it should not be made possible to move on to commonhold status without 100 per cent participation.
It is likely—we hope that it will be the case—that commonholds will become a very popular form of property holding. If that turns out to be the case, then the 80 per cent, 90 per cent or even 95 per cent of people who want to convert will be deprived of the possibility of converting into what is a more popular—and therefore a more valuable—form of property holding in a way which will cause no damage to the interests of those who do not wish to proceed with the conversion.
The only real difficulty we see in conversion is that an extra set of regulations will be needed to specify how a commonhold which includes leases is to be dealt with. That does not seem to us to be a serious disadvantage. It is therefore inevitable that some of us will wish to return on Report with a revised, and possibly co-ordinated, version of the amendments. I hope that in the interim the Government will be prepared to reconsider these issues. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"FLYING COMMONHOLD
(1) Commonhold land may consist of, or include, a building, or part of a building, which is above or below other land.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, a positive covenant relating to the commonhold or the other land entered into between the commonhold association and the registered proprietor of an estate in the whole or part of the other land shall be enforceable by and against their successors in title if the covenant so provides."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will recognise immediately that Amendment No. 11 has been shamelessly purloined from the proceedings that took place in the previous Parliament. I apologise in advance for so doing. I hope, however, that the noble Lord will be able to support the substantive amendment and some of the points that I shall make in relation to it.
I had the honour of speaking to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on 20th February 2001 in Grand Committee (Official Report, col. CWH18). I have no intention whatsoever of repeating my remarks. I shall simply say, telegraphically, that, as I understand it, a central feature of the Government's plans for urban society in the 21st century is the harmonious blending of residential homes with working offices—in other words, mixed developments.
It seems to me a great shame that the Government are not prepared to contemplate the concept of flying commonholds. We already have a severe restriction, as we learnt earlier in today's debate, on the ability to convert to commonhold with less than 100 per cent. Here we have a further restriction: unless the commonhold is from the ground floor up, it will not be possible for residential buildings either to convert to commonhold or to be commonhold new build.
I suggest that the amendment so ingeniously drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, provides the Government with the perfect "let out". It not only furnishes an elegant legal solution to the difficulties of positive covenants; it also ensures that the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Minister responsible for these matters in the House of Commons can look in the same direction, at the same time, together. I hope that the Government will greet the amendment with a great deal more warmth and humanity than they greeted that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, last February.
Amendment No. 13 is in a sense consequential on Amendment No. 11 and I do not think that I need to say any more about it.
Amendment No. 38 seems unassuming enough in its reference,
"Page 14, line 3, leave out 'not'".
In fact, it relates to forfeiture. It is not clear to me why there should be no power of forfeiture in the arrangements for managing commonhold properties. Surely the most effective sanction against a unit-holder failing to discharge his financial (or other) obligations to the association is to charge the unit as security for due performance. Unless the association has such security, its only ultimate remedy is to prove in the defaulting unit-holder's bankruptcy, in which it may recover only a small dividend.
One of the provisions which might properly be contained in the CCS is one prohibiting any new charge being created over the unit unless any debts due to the association shall first have been discharged (or will be discharged simultaneously with the execution of the charge). Absence of such a sanction might make it difficult to "sell" a commonhold scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Some amendments tabled by myself and by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which are grouped with those of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, cover a slightly similar subject although it is not totally relevant. Having accepted the grouping, perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 and to the paving amendments.
The amendments relate to the structure and common areas. It is absolutely necessary for these to be maintained and insured by the commonhold association. The existing provisions, as I understand them, make the balance of a structure which is not maintained or insured by the unit-holder the responsibility of a commonhold association. This could place too much responsibility with unit-holders, to the risk of the community as a whole.
500
This subject was debated in Grand Committee, so I shall pass over it quickly in the hope of a helpful response from the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I begin by responding to Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Under our law, positive covenants do not run with freehold land after the first purchaser has sold on his interest. Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 would allow a commonhold to be developed above non-commonhold land. That brings into play exactly the problem of positive covenants. The second subsection of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 11 would make it possible for covenants to be entered into between the commonhold association and the proprietor of what might be called the supporting land, which would be enforceable by and against the successors in title of both the commonhold association and the supporting land—although, perhaps a little oddly, they would be enforceable if the covenant so provided. That was a defect when the noble Lord, Lord Good hart, put forward the same amendment and we commented at it at the time.
It seems to me that the amendment would allow a flying commonhold to be built, even if the protection sought to be provided by the amendment were not available. However, let that pass; it is not critical to the argument. The argument goes back a long time. When we debated the matter previously, we had the pleasure of the company of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I hope that he is well. Thirty-six years ago, the noble and learned Lord chaired a committee on positive covenants affecting land. He reported to Parliament in 1965.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I are open-minded a s regards the extent to which it would be appropriate to impose positive covenants more widely on freehold land than is provided for in the Bill. However, the amendments are not the way to achieve that end. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said recently that it is our intention to leave open the wider question of whether and to what extent it should be possible to make the burden of positive covenants binding on buyers of freehold land more generally—and he referred to the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
The Law Commission is considering the matter. Your Lordships may think that 36 years is a long time but it has not been continuous consideration. The House will acknowledge that the Lord Chancellor is a doughty champion of the commission when legislative programmes are being prepared. He certainly wants them brought forward as fast as possible. The recommendations that are produced by the commission in due course will be consulted on widely and will be treated with the utmost seriousness by government when they are formally presented. We acknowledge that the amendment has raised an important problem but it is not one that can resolved in the Bill, so I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

501
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to Amendments Nos. 29 and 32 and described others in the group as paving amendments. I shall say something about them because we must take them together. Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 would make it compulsory for the commonhold community statement to refer to areas subject to the exclusion of specified structures; exclude from the definition of a unit the structures that delineate an area; refer to two or more areas of land as comprising a commonhold; and have regard to Clause 24(2), which deals with limited use areas.
Often, none of those circumstances will arise in a particular commonhold or part of it. The Bill makes it possible to do those things where it is appropriate. The amendments would make them mandatory, whether or not they would be appropriate. In the case of a detached house in a commonhold development, there is no reason to exclude structures, fittings, apparatus and appurtenances from the definition of the unit—any more than it would be necessary to exclude the garden fence that delineates the boundary of the property from the definition or to refer to two or more areas where only one area comprises the unit. Our approach is more flexible and effective.
Amendment No. 24 requires the commonhold association to insure and repair the structures of buildings in all commonholds. That would be the appropriate course for blocks of flats but that is not the only situation. There could be no justification for making the commonhold association responsible for the insurance and maintenance of detached, semi-detached or even terraced houses. The current draft of the commonhold community statement, at rules 22 and 25 of Part 4, requires the commonhold association to be responsible for those matters where blocks of flats are involved. I do not imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, intended the amendment to go so wide but we have included in the commonhold community statement the requirements in question.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 attempt to define all structural parts of a commonhold as common parts, then define what they mean to include in the term "structure". It would be inappropriate to define all structural members as common parts and thus the responsibility of the commonhold association. Our definition, which makes everything within the commonhold that is not defined as a unit common parts, achieves the proper end. What is and what is not structural for the purposes of insurance and maintenance of blocks of flats will be for the developer to define in the first instance. If it turns out, in light of experience in a particular commonhold, that the definitions do not work, the commonhold association—which is, after all, made up of individual unit holders—can amend the commonhold community statement.
I make the same point in respect of Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. If the structure is common parts, as it will be in a block of flats, the commonhold association must insure and maintain it. Where the structure is not, as in a house, the association should not do so.
502
Amendment No. 38 would lift the ban on the commonhold community statement, providing for the transfer or loss of interest in land within the commonhold on the basis of some occurrence or non-occurrence in the future. Our objection to that proposal, as we understood it, was that it would depart from the provision that a commonhold should not be established in circumstances in which it might be deprived of all or some of its land other than with the agreement of the association's members. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, argued the amendment on the basis of forfeiture in case of default. I confess that my original understanding of the amendment's meaning was not that argued by the noble Lord.
Forfeiture is not something that we want to import into the commonhold. It is widely hated by leaseholders. We will explain further when we reach the group headed by Amendment No. 25. For the present, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not press Amendment No. 38 in particular.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, replies, I apologise for not having spoken before because my attention was briefly distracted. The fact that we did not table Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 in particular does not indicate any disagreement with them. We did not table those amendments because they had an outing and that is as far as we proposed to take them. We entirely support the amendments in principle and I am happy to endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on flying commonholds.
Lord Selsdon: I, too, support my noble friend, but having heard the Minister, I do not understand why there cannot be flying commonholds when there are flying freeholds—even if the positive covenant issue cannot be overcome. Throughout London where terraced houses are being broken up through enfranchisement, often there is a flying freehold—such as a garage at the rear. I am referring not to mixed developments but to residential developments. If a terraced house is redeveloped where commonhold is proposed, if there cannot be a flying commonhold where there is some cut-in above or at first-floor level, the whole principle of commonhold is frustrated. If the Government are not willing to consider such amendments, they are effectively frustrating the introduction of commonhold.
Lord Kingsland: I agree entirely with the Minister that 36 years is a long time to respond to the brilliant report that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, drafted as long ago as 1965. However, it is not necessary to enter into all the complexities into which the noble and learned Lord was compelled to enter. Here, we are simply looking at the kind of neutral covenants between landlord and leaseholder that are found generally in the leaseholds of properties on different floors and which raise limited problems in relation to positive covenants.

503
The Government constantly tell us that they have achieved great things in the four and a half years that they have been in office. Are the Government saying that finding a solution to positive covenants in relation to mixed properties, where the lower floor does not involve commonhold, is beyond their ingenuity and invention? I cannot believe that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was merely acknowledging that the matter did not have as high a priority as some noble Lords might wish. While I am responding to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who drew an analogy with flying freeholds. I believe he would agree that flying freeholds are not particularly successful. Lawyers and mortgage companies do not like them. I would not wish to introduce an analogy with flying freeholds too readily.
Lord Selsdon: I apologise to the Committee. I should have declared an interest when I spoke earlier. I have just managed to complete an agreement on a flying freehold without the help of the best minds in the land. However, it was accepted in the end because it was a voluntary agreement between two parties.
Lord Kingsland: I have now completely forgotten what I was saying.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the noble Lord was making fun of the tardiness of the Government in acting on positive covenants—a legitimate point.
Lord Kingsland: I think that that is a good note upon which to conclude discussion on this grouping. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to
Schedule 2 [Land which may not be commonhold land]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Transitional period]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 31, after "Part" insert ""the first"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment which stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, perhaps I may, for the convenience of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18. These are very technical and minor amendments, if I may put it that way. As I understand it, Clause 8 provides for a "transitional period" between registration of the estate as commonhold and registration of a first unit-holder as proprietor. During this period, the Bill provides that commonhold regulations may be disapplied or modified. However, the Bill makes no mention of who the members of the commonhold association will be during the time from
504
the sale of the first unit and the end of the construction and selling period. We also need clarification concerning respective responsibilities during this time. These amendments attempt to address those issues. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These amendments would add to the Bill a new concept of a second transitional period, during which further regulations would introduce a special regime to govern the actions and responsibilities of the commonhold association between the sale of the first unit and the sale of the last. The matter was debated, although not at great length, in Grand Committee. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is trying to make, but our intention is that the commonhold community statement should come into force as soon as the first unit is sold and that it should govern the management of the commonhold from that time.
Therefore, the responsibility for paying commonhold assessments will apply to all unit-holders in the proportion laid down in the statement, and based on a budget. The purpose of this is that it should act as a real incentive to a developer to move quickly to sell units and fully establish the commonhold, as the responsibility for maintaining the unsold units will become more onerous on the developer as time passes. We believe that an extra layer of regulation is unnecessary and, therefore, do not support these amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—apparently, I have to call him that rather than referring to him as "my noble friend". However, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. We did discuss the matter in Grand Committee. I shall have to refer to my noble advisers regarding what course or action I take on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 lo 18 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Extinguished lease: liability]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Definition]:
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Use and maintenance]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Transfer]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 37, at end insert—
"(5) Outstanding debts and arrears due to the commonhold association must be paid upon transfer of the unit."
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Again, this is a technical amendment that forms part of a rather extensive group, to which no doubt one of my noble friends on the Front Bench will respond.
The amendment is designed to enable the commonhold association to resolve any disputes involving the unit on the transfer of the unit as clearly and cheaply as possible. The whole issue of transfers of units seems to me to be a matter that needs to be clarified. There are other amendments in this group, but this is the essential one that I wish to address in order to save time. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I shall speak to Amendment No. 37, which is included in this grouping. This amendment, like others in the group, is intended to deal with the potentially very serious problems that arise from non-payment, or late payment, of contributions to a commonhold association. The problem is that persistent non-payers or late payers—perhaps late payers are, in a sense, even worse because it is more difficult to take measures against them ultimately—may impose serious hardships on other members of the commonhold association. For example, the commonhold association may be unable to carry out maintenance or repairs because it does not have enough money in hand; it may have difficulty in paying its bills; and it may need to call on the other members of the association to pay more.
At present, where you have landlords and tenants, the former can use the threat of forfeiture. In practice, forfeiture is very rarely enforced because the landlord has to serve a notice calling for any defects to be remedied and give time for compliance under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act. Again, where the failure is in the payment of rent, similar provisions apply enabling a tenant to obtain relief, but such relief can only be obtained on payment of what is due. Therefore, that is a powerful and effective weapon.
Of course, that weapon could be too effective. In the hands of aggressive landlords it can be used too soon, or too frequently, and can be a cause of serious concern to tenants who are faced with inappropriate use of forfeiture proceedings. Any equivalent in the case of a commonhold association is far less likely to happen because the association is also made up of the various members. They know that any threat that they use against a recalcitrant member of the association is one that can also be used against them. Quite frankly, abuse of any power equivalent to forfeiture in the case of a commonhold association is a very remote danger.
Without the threat of forfeiture or its equivalent, it is far more difficult to enforce timely payment of the necessary contributions to the commonhold association. It is not right that non-payers or late payers should be able to force the other members of the association to pay for the maintenance costs of common parts, repairs, and so on, which can only be recovered much later.
506
It is, of course, true that a commonhold association can bring a claim against a unit-holder for non-payment. It can get judgment and in due course ask the court for a charging order over the unit. But that is a slow and expensive procedure that gives the charges due to the commonhold association no priority over any other charges.
We therefore believe that a fairly draconian remedy is needed. We would go further than the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and say that it is not enough to wait until there is a sale by a unit-holder and then recover debts out of the proceeds of sale. That may well be too late. In the great majority of cases, one would be dealing with a unit-holder who remains in occupation. Amendment No. 37 proposes that a commonhold community statement should contain a right for the commonhold association to sell the property in the event of a default, and to recover the money due out of the proceeds in priority to all other interests. In practice, it is most unlikely that the power to sell would have to be exercised in any but the most extreme cases because the threat of it would be sufficient to ensure that the money was found by the unit-holder, or possibly by a unit-holder's chargee who wants to preserve his or her security.
Our amendment does not spell out the necessary provisions of the commonhold community statement in detail. That statement would need to include, for example, provisions for giving notice of an intention to exercise the power to a unit-holder and other interested parties, and to give time for payment. We believe that such an amendment is essential if commonholds are to work properly. The absence of anything giving priority and an effective weapon for enforcement of charges is a serious defect in the current proposals.
5 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I rise to speak to several amendments in this group. First, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63.
It is an important principle that, in Clause 36, enforcement should only be between unit-holders and the association. Tenants will not be directly liable to the association, so they should not have rights except against their landlord. Tenants of a freehold would not have rights, except in the law of tort, against neighbouring freeholders, and the same should apply to commonhold.
Secondly, paragraph (i) should be left out of Clause 36 as compulsory ADR will lead not only to delay but possible prejudice. Amendment No. 62 would add new paragraph:
"(j) enabling a tenant to offset any payments made to the association against any monies owning to the unit-holder as landlord".
Although Clause 19(3)(a) states that regulations "may" make a similar provision, there is no reason for that provision not to be on the face of the Bill.

507
It is self-evident that compensation involves property rights, and it is my firm view that the courts are the proper forum to determine those. Indeed, not allowing the court to determine such rights could have important implications under the Human Rights Act.
I turn to Amendment No. 63 and the two insertions that are proposed by paragraphs (c) and (d), referring to
"charging the interest of a unit-holder",
which is an essential provision for preventing default. Otherwise the association has no effective sanction. Relying on obtaining a judgment and subsequently enforcing it by charging order is too slow, costly and cumbersome. There may be no equity left in the property by that stage. An express costs sanction is an essential deterrent to prevent unit-holders from defaulting, and it is a way in which to avoid prejudice to the other unit-holders, particularly when the amounts involved may be under the small claims limit.
I dealt with the matters involved in Amendments Nos. 65, 67, 72, 81 and 83 at length in the Grand Committee debates on the Bill last winter, and I shall not trouble your Lordships again. However, there is a new clause—Clause 41—which introduces an ombudsman, and I should like to say something about that.
Ombudsmen are very fashionable, and one always exposes oneself to a certain amount of political danger if one questions their relevance. Nevertheless, I shall take that risk by saying that I wonder whether an ombudsman is an appropriate addition to the rich tapestry of remedies that the Government have already provided in the Bill.
The proposal is for regulations that could make it compulsory for a commonhold association to be a member of such a scheme. They could require the commonhold association, but not the unit-holders, to co-operate with the ombudsman. Finally, they could require a commonhold association, but not the unit-holders, to comply with the ombudsman's decision. I believe that the proposal is both unnecessary and ill thought out.
If disputes are to be determined in accordance with legal principles, the court or an arbitrator is the appropriate forum and there is no need for an ombudsman. If ADR mediation, or something similar is required, a voluntary ADR scheme would be sufficient. Commonhold associations could even choose to include references to such a scheme in the commonhold community statement.
If the ombudsman will not apply strict legal principles, it is a breach of the rights of the commonhold association—and potentially unfairly prejudicial to the rights of all the other unit-holders not involved in the dispute—for, first, a reference to the ombudsman to be compulsory and, secondly, for the ombudsman's decision to be binding on the commonhold association—particularly if the unit-holder involved in the dispute is not bound by the decision. It is a possible human rights breach for a unit-holder potentially to be jointly liable on such a judgment debt when the unit was not a party to the proceedings in which the judgment arose.
508
A further criticism is that, when the identity of the unit holder changes on the sale of a unit, there will be difficulties in determining whether the old or the new unit holder is liable to a creditor. Would the relevant date be when the creditor obtained judgment, when the money became due, when the work commenced, when the work was completed or when the work was requested? Potentially a person may sell his home and face a claim many years later of which he had no previous notice.
Lastly, the potential for unlimited personal liability in respect of contracts to which unit holders are not a party, and over which they may have little control, can only act as a deterrent to the purchase of commonhold properties. The problem which the proposed amendment is designed to cure that—is, that contractors are likely to be cautious about dealing with commonhold associations if limited liability may make it impossible to collect sums owing—is unlikely to arise in practice. Contractors are, after all, used to dealing with limited liability companies and any contractor who is concerned can demand payment in advance of, or, for substantial sums, payment to be held for his account.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall deal with the amendments, if I may, in order, although Amendment No. 37 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Good hart, would introduce into commonhold a right afforded to the commonhold association to sell units upon the non-payment of money owed to the association by unit holders. In the leasehold context that right is known as forfeiture, as the noble Lord rightly said. Amendment No. 25, proposed by my noble friend Lord Williams, provides that debts due to the commonhold association by a unit holder must be paid on transfer of a unit.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made it clear at the Second Reading of the Bill's predecessor that the recovery of debts owing to the commonhold association by unit holders is foremost in his mind—I should imagine that it still is—we are a little surprised that he has chosen this route to address his concerns. We remain firmly of the opinion that forfeiture, or any similar provision by whatever other name, is quite inappropriate for commonhold. The Committee will recall that at Second Reading the noble Lord indicated that, as is often the case in leasehold, the threat of forfeiture would be enough to secure payment of debts to the commonhold association, and, indeed, he repeated that this afternoon. This may be the case, but behind every threat there must lie the possibility of action, and the possibility of a right to forfeiture being realised in the commonhold context remains for us anathema.
We are apprehensive about importing a means of prematurely terminating a lease into commonhold because one of the fundamental precepts of commonhold is freehold ownership of units by unit holders. We cannot conceive the merit of marrying together two concepts that are on the face of it so incompatible.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she accept that in the case of freeholds where there is a charge over the freehold, the chargee or mortgagee does have a right to sell and therefore this is simply importing into the commonhold system something which is already entirely familiar within the freehold system?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I accept that the concept of a charge is an appropriate one for freehold and, of course, with commonhold it would be possible, if someone secured judgment in relation to a debt, to secure the return of their money if secured by way of a charge. That is precisely what we say would be the appropriate course. Forfeiture, as the noble Lord will know well, having trammelled along these lines for many years—and, I hesitate to say, many more years than I—has been a sword of Damocles used to great disadvantage to leaseholders and has as a result fallen almost into disrepute.
As I say, we are apprehensive, therefore, about importing a means of prematurely terminating a lease into commonhold because one of the fundamental precepts of commonhold is freehold ownership. That is a kernel that we believe cannot be over-emphasised.
A commonhold unit is a freehold estate in commonhold land. Forfeiture is a process used by the holder of a superior interest to prematurely terminate an inferior interest in his property. Termination of the interest by the holder of the superior interest occurs because of the failure of the holder of the inferior interest to fulfil an obligation owed to the holder of the superior interest. Such a relationship simply does not exist, and is not intended to exist, within commonhold. We are talking about unit holders who have a parity of position without superiority or inferiority. There is no one with an interest in a commonhold unit superior to that of the unit holder. The commonhold association is the registered proprietor of the freehold estate in the common parts but has no claim to the units, nor should it, we believe.
Apart from the innate unsuitability of forfeiture as a vehicle for debt recovery in commonholds, we have stressed previously—I repeat this today—that forfeiture is widely abused and hated in the leasehold context. I do not think that that is putting it too high. In recognition of the problems with forfeiture, provisions in Part 2 of the Bill will curb the ability of landlords to serve forfeiture notices without a determination by a leasehold valuation tribunal or LVT. I am sure that the Committee does not want to import into commonhold a process that has been widely condemned in its application to leasehold tenure and which we are currently seeking to rein in.
As far as this amendment and Amendment No. 25 are concerned, we have stated before that there is a wide range of debt collecting machinery available to the commonhold association. By not accepting these amendments for commonhold forfeiture nor, as was previously suggested, imposing a statutory first charge in favour of the commonhold association, nor
510
introducing any particular mechanism for recovering debt exclusively within commonhold, we are not in any way preventing the commonhold association from recouping debts owed to it by unit holders. We are simply reluctant to set up a special debt collection process which would apply in the commonhold context alone.
Amendment No. 37 goes rather further as it would allow a power of sale immediately in the event of any default of payment. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seeks to introduce an even more draconian provision than one has to date seen.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That was not my intention. What I said, and what the amendment is intended to do, is simply to state the general principle and leave the details to be contained in the commonhold community statement. That will be contained in regulations. It is intended that those regulations could contain all the necessary provisions about the giving of notice, the time for compliance with payment of the debt and so on. It is not as stark as the noble Baroness believes.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am comforted to hear that but it just returns us to our former position in terms of the superior and inferior matter. We believe that it would be inappropriate to introduce forfeiture at this point.
I turn to the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I may have some happier news for him in relation to a couple of his amendments although generally I am afraid that we are not with him. Amendment No. 59 would make the contents of the regulations governing the operation of commonhold mandatory. We are not able to see any advantage to replacing "may" with "shall" and the disadvantage might be later arguments about the vires of any action by the commonhold association.
I shall try to deal with the other amendments briefly, as the noble Lord did. Amendment No. 60 would omit the paragraph that gives a tenant of a unit holder the right to enforce a duty imposed on another tenant, unit holder or the commonhold association. As a result, the tenant, whose lease already in effect contains the commonhold community statement and memorandum and articles of association to which he is committed as a full unit holder, would none the less be in a much worse position than the unit holder from whom he holds his lease. Presumably the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, expects that a tenant in that position would rely on his unit holder to carry out any enforcement on his behalf. That, I respectfully suggest, is not a feasible proposition and is inconsistent with other areas of the Bill where reference to the term "unit holder" is specifically taken to include reference to a tenant of a unit holder.
Amendment No. 61 would omit the paragraph that allows the regulation to specify a particular alternative dispute resolution scheme in advance of bringing legal proceedings. Clause 41 stand part is also in this group. As I understand it, deleting that clause would remove the ombudsman scheme, leaving no standardised scheme for dispute resolution.

511
The Government will consult widely about what should go into the regulations to ensure that those who have expertise in the various areas to be covered have had ample opportunity to advise us. There is expertise within and outside the Lord Chancellor's Department to assist us. If we were left in the position to which the noble Lord's amendments are leading us, the risk is that there would be no expert guidance to those who found themselves living in and operating commonhold. We have to maintain our proposition that standardisation of procedures is a considerable potential advantage to come out of the commonhold scheme and we wish to retain the power to prescribe where it seems to us good to do so, always bearing in mind that, if the balance of advantage in due course seems to suggest other ways to achieve our aims, regulations can be amended quickly and efficiently.
Amendment No. 62 provides, though less completely than the Bill does at present, for a tenant to offset any moneys paid to the commonhold association against what he owes to the unit holder. Clause 19(3) makes fuller and better provision for that, we respectfully suggest, so the amendment would provide less protection for tenants. I am sure that that is not the noble Lord's intention.
Amendment No. 63 would provide for charging a defaulter's interest in his unit to secure payment of compensation, costs and interest. As I have said, that would narrow the possibilities open to a commonhold association when pursuing debts. A charging order is one possibility, but only one among many. I am not convinced that, in so far as we are providing a freehold interest in a unit, it is appropriate to hedge the enjoyment of that interest around with special powers. If, in due course, a dispute has reached the stage at which the defaulter owes compensation, costs and interest to the commonhold association, it is surely time for the courts to be involved. Armed with an appropriate order, the whole range of debt collecting machinery will be open to the commonhold association. In parenthesis, the noble Lord has presented forfeiture as an easier route—faster and cheaper—but I do not think that that is the universal experience of those who have sought it as a solution.
Amendment No. 65 would put beyond doubt that the directors of a commonhold association could include in their annual estimate a sum up to the value of an amount owed by a defaulter, provided they had taken reasonable steps to recover the loss from the defaulter. In practice, that would mean inviting the members of the commonhold association to cover the outstanding sum between them. That will sometimes be a more attractive proposition than, say, putting off the necessary and programmed repairs to the roof or the lift until the balance of the account has built up to where it would have been if the defaulter had paid up.
No doubt the members will want to hear what steps were taken to recover the debt. Equally beyond doubt is their absolute discretion as to whether to accept the explanation and the sum in the estimate. We will consider the noble Lord's amendment and come back to the matter on Report. As Amendment No. 67 is
512
closely connected, we shall also have a further think about that as well. We are not quite so persuaded about the need for that one, but we shall give it active consideration.
Amendment No. 72 is a further attempt to introduce a special debt collection process for commonhold, securing all moneys due to be paid as commonhold assessments by way of statutory first charge. We are still of the view that hedging the freehold nature of the commonhold units around with special arrangements will make them less attractive purchases than might be the case and we shall continue to resist the suggestion.
As we noted last time, we are unable to see what the noble Lord expects to achieve with Amendment No. 81, to which he has not spoken specifically today. If the commonhold association finds that documents are non-compliant, it can arrange for them to be amended and revisited. It does not need a declaration from a court to tell it so. The clause is designed to give unit holders whose lives are, to a great extent, governed by those documents, an opportunity to force an unwilling commonhold association to act if the documents are non-compliant. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 would extend the period in which an application to the court is to be made from three months to six months. We see no advantage in that proposed extension, particularly as the court can grant permission for an application to be made at any time by virtue of sub section(4)(c).
Finally, the noble Lord expressed some doubts about the ombudsman clause. I noted the hesitance and reluctance with which he ventured those comments. I share the wisdom of that hesitance. Clause 41 introduces an ombudsman scheme into the Bill. Your Lordships may well be aware that the Government take the view that it should be closely modelled on the independent housing ombudsman scheme. We believe that there is real merit in keeping disputes arising in commonholds away from the courts and tribunals in so far as it is proper to do so, always with the proviso that the courts will be there in the last resort. Clause 34(3)(b) requires the directors of the commonhold association to consider alternative dispute resolution before resorting to the courts. The independent housing ombudsman scheme is inexpensive, quick and flexible and has a good reputation. An ombudsman scheme seems to us to be a perfectly good model to adopt as one approach to dispute resolution. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, nothing else is in place, so we would be sorry to lose this opportunity and we would rather keep it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My noble friend has given the Committee a great deal to think about in what I appreciate was a rather long and complicated legal exposition to which those with greater training than I have will no doubt pay a great deal of attention. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my very simple amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Leasing: residential]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 8, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
"( ) No term of years absolute may be created in a residential commonhold unit—

(a) for a term exceeding 7 years;

(b) in consideration of the payment of a premium or other lump sum:

(c) which does not comply with such other considerations as may be prescribed."

The noble Lord said: This grouping appears to me to be a little odd. Amendment No. 26 and the Question whether Clause 17 stand part are certainly grouped together appropriately, but the remaining amendments seem to deal with entirely different subject matters. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wishes to degroup them.
Amendment No. 26 specifies on the face of the Bill a maximum length of seven years on the lease of a unit and bans the taking of premiums for any lease of a unit. The amendment raises the question of the philosophy behind commonhold. We believe in principle that commonhold should be a form of collective or co-operative ownership, whichever term one wishes to use, for those who live in the property.
We all know about the problems which have led to the proposals for commonhold, but those problems apply only to the people who live in the property. From the point of view of investors, it simply represents a different form of investment, and there is no difference in principle between buying leasehold and freehold properties as an investor. They may involve different rates of return and there may be different tax advantages one way or the other, but there is no question of any hardship.
Therefore, in the creation of commonhold one is considering the interests of the people who live in the property and who suffer from problems facing those who live in leasehold properties. We accept that unit-holders cannot always be resident in the property. Some people may want to buy a commonhold unit for their retirement, which is not due for a while. Unit-holders may be posted abroad and may wish to retain their property as a place to which they can return when their posting ends. Of course, there may be other reasons why people want to let their units rather than live in them themselves. Therefore, there can be no question of banning a letting.
However, we believe that it is important that we do not recreate the existing problems by allowing unit-holders to grant long leases of units, thereby making unit-holders long-term investors rather than occupiers of a property who may have to be away for limited periods of time.
The seven-year maximum appears to us to be an appropriate limit. Nowadays, seven years seems to be regarded as the boundary line between shorter and longer-term leases; for example, under the Land Registration Act leases for seven years or less will not be registrable, while leases for more than seven years
514
will be. It is certainly now unusual to find a rack-rent lease of a residential property given for a term longer than seven years.
Therefore, we believe that it is important for there to be a fairly strict limit on the type of lease of units that can be granted. We do not believe that restricting the period to seven years will reduce the value of units; we believe that it will preserve the reasons for which commonhold is being introduced. We consider this to be a sufficiently important issue for the limit to be on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about this particular grouping. I should have drawn it to the attention of the Government Whips before the debate. I believe that, apart from the Question whether Clause 17 stand part, it would be more felicitous for the remaining headings to be considered when we reach the grouping beginning with Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. However, I know that the noble Baroness will have—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No one told us that this matter had been drawn to the attention of the Whips' Office. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wishes to debate it in a different form, we shall try to accommodate ourselves to it.
Lord Kingsland: It is entirely my fault that the matter was not drawn to the attention of the Whips. I do not for one minute suggest that in this particular instance the Government have in any way fallen below the high standards that one would expect them to meet.
I shall simply address the Question of Clause 17 stand part. This proved to be a controversial matter in the debate that took place last February. In a way, I am quite surprised that it has not injected greater enthusiasm among Members of the Committee this afternoon.
Clause 17 imposes restrictions on a residential unit-holder's right to create a lease of his unit. According to the Explanatory Notes, the intention is that regulations made under Clause 17(1) should set down both that no premium should be payable for a lease, which should be at rack-rent, and that the maximum period for a single-term lease should be restricted to seven years.
Criticism was made of this clause at Second Reading. The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Richard, considered that some restriction would be appropriate, although I do not believe that they said—at least, on that occasion—what the restriction should be. However, in all events, they believed that the present proposals were too restrictive. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, drawing on her great experience of company law and strata titles in New South Wales, opposed any restrictions on lettings. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that tight restrictions would hamper reinvigoration of the rental market.

515
As the principal intent behind the proposals for commonhold is to place unit-holders into as nearly as possible the same position as if they were outright freeholders—that is, with as few restrictions as possible on their powers of dispossession and alienation—the presumption should be against any restriction unless clearly justified.
If the concern is that problems may arise if some unit-holders are, in effect, absentee landlords, those problems are more properly to be treated as problems of management. They should be dealt with in accordance with the CCS and/or the memorandum of association rather than by regulation. For example, if a person in occupation of a unit has a sufficiently substantial interest in possession—say, a lease for seven years or more with at least two years unexpired—there may be a provision that he, as a person more likely to be interested M the day-to-day affairs of the commonhold than his absentee landlord, should be able to exercise certain rights of the unit-holder, such as voting at association meetings, either generally or on certain specific issues. In any event, the proposed restrictions are far more restrictive than those imposed by, say, Section 41 of the Settled Land Act 1925.
The Bill does not deal with the leasing powers of trustees of land; nor does it spell out the consequences of granting an invalid lease for an innocent purchaser. If it had been intended that such matters should be dealt with by regulation to be made under Clause 19, then they are all matters of fundamental importance. They should be debated and form part of the primary legislation and should not be left to delegated legislation.
Lord Selsdon: I do not understand why there is any need for restrictions. I should like to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to certain changes within this environment.
Increasing numbers of banks are introducing mortgages under the heading, "Buy to rent". That is partly due to falling interest rates and the desperately low return that retired people get from their pension. In many countries in which there have been low interest rates there has been a tendency for those who are semi-retired or retired to buy a property that they let to supplement their pension, which is often very small. In many cases they might let something for the rest of their life. They are seeking not to be Rachman-type landlords but to get a good return on their income and to increase their pension.
That attitude should be encouraged. If there are restrictions, we may end up—we currently do so—with a large part of the housing stock being empty. Rooms that are available to let are not let. Someone who buys a commonhold unit may face restrictions although he has no intention of living there; factors that are beyond his control—he may be sent overseas—may also operate.
For those reasons, I am all for minimum restrictions. I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who said that we do not want to replicate the leasehold system by the backdoor. The matter needs to be thought through.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke to Amendment No. 26, he said that it was part of the philosophy that lies behind commonhold. I hope that I can persuade him that the matter is nowhere near as fundamental as that. We are talking about the way in which to draft a Bill that reflects a matter about which I believe we both agree. The amendments have been placed in this group because they concern the content of the commonhold community statement, the memorandum and the articles of association. I am prepared to agree that on reflection some of the later amendments in this group would have been better placed in the group that contains the amendments through which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland., seeks to place the entire memorandum, articles and CCS in the Bill. That may be partly because I incited him to do just that. However, I shall come to the issue of why I may have done so in due course.
I turn first to Amendment No. 26. The wording used by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reflects the Government's intentions. That is why I said that there is no disagreement in purpose between us. Those are indeed the terms on which the Government intend to allow letting.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, proposes to remove the entirety of Clause 17, which deals with residential leasing, from the Bill. I listened to him very carefully but I am still not clear whether that means that he would put the information in the CCS or another document, or whether he would remove the restrictions altogether.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me an opportunity to respond—I will not have to deal with this matter again at a later stage. He will be aware that he will soon respond to my suggestion that the regulations dealing with the substance of the memorandum of association and the CCS should appear in the Bill in a schedule. On the assumption—the generous assumption—that the Minister thinks that that is a good idea, it would be my intention to introduce on Report amendments to the schedules to deal with those matters.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that I better understand the noble Lord's point—it is that if the CCS, the memorandum and the articles are in the Bill, one does not need Clause 17. Well, as he said, we shall argue about that when we reach the appropriate point in the Bill. His proposal would be very damaging because it would resurrect many of the problems that are inherent in long leasehold and which we are seeking to remove with the Bill.
We think that it is better—this is why I say that a matter not of principle but of procedure is involved—for leasing restrictions to be set out in regulations. We have already heard—we shall later hear more—about the flexibility that would be available if certain matters were dealt with by regulation. We believe that this is a good example of that. Our original intention was to impose very tight controls on the letting of residential

517
units. Much pressure was put on us in that regard. It was pointed out that tight regulation would tend to make commonhold developments unpopular because buy-to-let would be next to impossible. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, reiterated that point. We were told that a significant part of the market in flatted properties, particularly in London, was for investment and that that was a legitimate use of commonhold procedures. We considered that advice and decided to take it. Amendment No. 26 sets out the terms at which we have arrived.
This proposal is about the ability to react to the market. We want to be able to adapt to the market in due course if it appears that a different term of years proves to be more attractive to developers and purchasers. For that reason we think that the mechanism of setting the terms by regulation is the right mechanism and, although we are grateful for the acceptance of our reasoning and the conclusions to which we have come, we do not think that it is appropriate for the provisions to be in the Bill. Further primary legislation is required to change the situation.
Amendment No. 39, which appears in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would entail specifying in the commonhold community statement the voting rights of members at meetings of the commonhold association. We believe that that degree of detail is more appropriate in the statement itself; we do not need to go into that in detail—the degree of flexibility is sufficient.
Article 23 of the current articles of association provides that a resolution shall be decided by a show of hands. Article 31 provides that a show of hands will be decided on the basis of one member one vote. However, if the chairman, a group of five members at the meeting or one-tenth of the members at the meeting demand a poll, members will have one vote for every unit that they own. The poll may be taken in such a manner as the chairman directs. We believe that that is a straightforward means—so far as any of these matters can be called straightforward—of allocating votes in a commonhold and that it strikes the right balance of equality between members and the recognition that those with a larger property investment in the commonhold may have a greater interest in the outcome of a resolution.
The noble Lord also tabled Amendment No. 40 and proposes to remove Clause 32. That clause specifies that regulations about the commonhold community statement will require the statement to state how it can be amended. That follows on from the amendment to place the commonhold community statement in the Bill. He must recognise in advance, I am afraid, that we are going to resist that proposal.
Amendment No. 40 would insert a new clause stating that regulations should require a commonhold community statement to state how it can be amended. If the noble Lord had not attempted to remove the entirety of Clause 32 that amendment would not be necessary.
518
I do not know whether the noble Lord wants me to comment on Amendments Nos. 48 and 49, which he did not discuss.
Lord Kingsland: I sought to indicate earlier that I want to deal with those matters when we come to the group of amendments containing the proposal to introduce the memorandum of association and the CCS into the Bill in schedules.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case I shall reserve my comments for later.
On the substantive issue with which the Committee is concerned, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not press Amendment No. 26.
Baroness Hamwee: Before my noble friend responds, I ask the Minister to say a little more about the flexibility that he suggested is appropriate in this situation. That seems to indicate that the Government may from time to time take a different view of, for example, what is an appropriate length of term of a lease. I wonder whether that involves flexibility that borders a little on being unfair to successive generations of unit holders. They may not know when they acquire the units what they can expect in terms of the Government's prescribed conditions. Therefore, the flexibility may be on the part of the Government. I take the Minister's point. There is a need to be able to respond to market conditions. Equally, I believe that that contains some unfairness and uncertainty for unit-holders, with which at present I do not feel comfortable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe the answer is that the memorandum and articles and the commonhold community associations contain substantial elements which cannot be changed by individual commonhold associations. There is certain scope for flexibility at the margin, but the whole point of the way in which this has been drafted is that these are requirements of Government laid down by regulation. That means that they can be changed only with the approval of Parliament, either tacit or explicit.
Lord Goodhart: I refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, on Amendment No. 26. There is nothing to stop unit-holders buying a unit in order to rent. They would be perfectly entitled to rent at a rack-rent for seven years and at the end of the seven years re-let again. I believe that that is even potentially a problem. This issue is important and I would prefer to see the restrictions on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, our intention and that of the Government are the same. I shall consider with my noble friends whether we need to raise the matter again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Other transactions]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 9, line 34, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
The noble Lord said: Here, we have yet more restrictions on the right of a unit-holder to deal with his or her unit. No explanation or justification for them has been given in the Explanatory Notes. They will tend to inhibit many common and often informal arrangements made in good faith and beneficial to everyone. What of the case where a unit-holder's aged mother agrees to contribute to the purchase of a unit in the unit-holder's name on terms that she has a beneficial interest in the unit and/or the right to live there?
Such arrangements often enable the younger generation to get on to the property ladder. Surely the new law on commonhold should encourage that? The restrictions in Clause 20(3) to (6) would have the reverse effect. Any such restrictions as may be justified are more properly to be imposed by the CCS; so that in the case of new development a unit-holder will know and accept the proposed restrictions before he contracts to purchase the unit and, in the case of a conversion from leasehold, a unit-holder will have been able to consider and discuss them before giving his consent to the application to register commonhold.
As regards Amendment No. 28, Clause 21 imposes yet another restriction on unit-holders. The intention, as stated in the Explanatory Notes, is,
"to preserve the integrity of the unit, and also to ensure that no event takes place that would require a change to the commonhold community statement (CCS) which is not in the control of the commonhold association".
There may be circumstances when it is convenient or financially necessary for a unit-holder to deal with part only of his unit; for example, again, if he wishes to accommodate his aged mother in a flat for which she has contributed her own money. For the same reasons as already given, any such restriction that may be justified is more appropriately imposed by the CCS.
I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: When we last saw Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 we were able to say to the noble Lord that the Government were tabling amendments which we believed went some way to achieving what he seemed to want. We, too, had recognised that the restrictions on the creation of interests in commonhold units seemed unnecessarily stringent and we tabled amendments to lift them.
As we noted at that time, we presumed that what is now Amendment No. 28, which would allow the creation of interest in part-units, subject to the provisions of the commonhold community statement, is intended to relax the absolute prohibition on interests and charges on part-units. We believe we have done that. We will now allow interests, except prescribed interests, on part-units following a resolution in favour by the commonhold association. It is still our intention that charges over part-units should not be possible and that is for reasons which noble Lords have already heard.
520
A charge over a part unit, should it prove necessary in due course to enforce, would result in a change being required to the commonhold community statement, which would not be under the control of the commonhold association. We believed that we went more than half way to meet the noble Lord on the previous occasion. I am sorry to see that these amendments have come back.
The provisions of Clause 20, as they presently stand, represent a considerable relaxation to the restrictions in the previous version of the Bill prior to Report. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am sorry to have sounded churlish in the remarks I uttered. My reading of the modest changes made by the Government is somewhat different from that of the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, I shall take her comments into account and reflect on the matter before Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Part-units]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Definition]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Use and maintenance]:
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Charges: general prohibition]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert—
"(6) A charge shall not be extinguished under subsection (3) or (4) unless either—

(a) the chargee first consents in writing,

(b) fair compensation is paid to the chargee for such extinguishment, or

(c) adequate substituted security is provided for the chargee by way of a charge, or charges, on one or more of the commonhold units in the commonhold.

(7) The county court shall have jurisdiction to determine any matter arising under subsection (6) whatever the amount or value of the compensation or security involved."
The noble Lord said: Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 27 provide for the extinguishment of existing charges over commonhold land in so far as they relate to the common parts. There is no provision to compensate a chargee for his loss. It might have been felt unnecessary if consent to an application to register a freehold estate in commonhold land had to be 100 per cent, including that of all proprietors of charges. In that context I refer to Clause 3(1)(c).
Such a provision seems necessary if consent is less than 100 per cent, as proposed in the relevant amendment, or if in some cases, consent is deemed to have been given under Clause 3(2)(e), or if consent is dispensed with under Clause 3(2)(f) or if a charge is not protected by registration or a caution against dealing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the grouping that was agreed, Amendment No. 33 was included in the group with Amendment No. 1. We shall, of course, try to answer it, but if the noble Lord had wished us to take it out, it would have been helpful to know in advance.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister. It seems only just and consistent with Article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which, as the Minister knows, refers to the peaceful enjoyment of property, that a chargee can get fair compensation or adequate substituted security before his charge over common parts is extinguished. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am more than happy to repeat what I said when I spoke to this matter earlier today. The noble Lord will remember that I answered this issue in relation to Amendment No. 33 when I commented on Amendment No. 19. I said at that stage in relation to Amendment No. 33 that it provides for chargees to consent to the extinguishing of charges over land that is to become part of the common parts. The Bill already provides for such consents by registered chargees in Clause 3. The arrangements made between the applicant for registration and the chargees as to compensation or the substitution of security seem to us to be a matter to be sorted out between them.
I am afraid that these amendments, as we have already respectfully suggested—and I am happy to repeat it—are defective in almost every respect. They would achieve only the basis for a scheme that would be expensive and unwieldy and, in our view, next to impossible to manage. I think that was the penultimate matter that I dealt with.
Lord Kingsland: I am aware that the Minister had responded to my Amendment No. 33, before I had spoken to it. I hoped that, having heard me speak to it, she would on reflection change her mind. Plainly, she has not done so. In those circumstances, I shall further reflect on the matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [New legal mortgages]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 30 [Form and content: general]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 13, line 15, leave out "prescribed"
The noble Lord said: There is a large number of amendments in this group, and also some amendments in the group beginning with Amendment No. 26, to which I draw the attention of the Committee.
I shall not deal with each amendment. It will suffice to draw the Committee's attention to the purpose behind this group of amendments. The purpose is to insert on the face of the Bill the details that would be required to establish a commonhold community statement and the provisions for the memorandum and articles of association of the commonhold association.
I had given notice to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, of my intention to do this; and my intention was formilated in an earlier debate that took place in the Grand Committee last winter. I had hoped that the Government would be prepared to accept that these two documents, or at least the framework for them, would form part of schedules to the Bill, in the best traditions of the 1925 property legislation. However, having heard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, speak on several occasions on this issue, I despaired of that occurring.
Therefore, the real motive for my amendments today is to get the draft regulations that the Government have kindly published—in both the CCS and the memorandum of association—on to the face of the Bill today, so that at a later stage I shall be in a position to table amendments. The direction in which I wish to take both those schedules is, to some extent, indicated by the other amendments in the group.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly admonished me at Report stage earlier this year for having tabled what I thought the schedules ought to be, rather than what the Government thought the schedules ought to be. I hope I have learned from that experience. I have therefore taken the Government's drafts and tabled them as schedules. If the Government accept that, it would be my intention to amend them on Report and for the matter to be resolved at Third Reading. If, of course, the Government do not accept that approach, I shall have to consider very carefully whether to re-table these amendments at Report stage, seek the support of the House to defeat the Government and then amend the schedules at Third Reading.
I hope that I have said enough to enable the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to respond to this group of amendments.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may seek clarification of Amendment No. 192, to which Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are paving amendments. It is true that Amendment No. 192 is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It is not a government amendment. However, I believe that in its entirety it replicates the most recent draft commonhold

523
community statement, helpfully sent to me and no doubt to many other noble Lords by the Lord Chancellor's Department on 8th October. I admit that I had not previously studied it, but it contains a couple of matters that puzzle me. If for technical reasons, because the amendment is not in their name, the Government feel that they cannot answer, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, can.
Why in paragraph 22 is it made obligatory for each unit-holder to insure his or her contents? It is a sensible thing to insure one's contents, but surely it is nobody else's business if one fails to do so. If your contents are stolen or burned, you are the only loser. It does not affect the other unit-holders at all. Of course, paragraph 23 puts teeth into the provisions of paragraph 22. Similarly, paragraph 25 provides that each unit-holder shall maintain the interior of his property, and paragraph 26 gives the teeth to that.
It is clearly right that each unit-holder should ensure that nothing that happens in his unit adversely affects others, such as allowing taps to drip and baths to overflow, but that is covered by paragraph 61. If, for example, a unit-holder demolishes an interior, non-load-bearing partition and fails to re-erect it, why should that be any business of the other unit-holders? It does not affect them in any way. I should be grateful for an explanation of why those two rather onerous provisions are included in the draft.
Lord Kingsland: It would be entirely appropriate for the Government to respond to the noble Lord. It is the Government's draft.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have already debated that specific issue in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I refer the noble Lord to Hansard when it is produced.
I have made a rod for my own back. It has been my principle in business all my life that if I have failed to communicate something, that is my fault and not the fault of the person to whom I have failed to make the communication. I was seeking to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to do what I did in opposition on a number of occasions when I thought that the substance of the legislation was contained in various secondary documents, whether codes of conduct, draft memorandum and articles or whatever, and that we could not debate the substance of the Bill effectively unless we had them on its face for the purposes of debate.
It was never my argument that codes of conduct, guidance principles, memorandum and articles, community statements or any such document should stay on the face of the Bill and I do not believe that that is the point the noble Lord is trying to make. I am merely setting the scene because the noble Lord is suggesting that we should leave the matter before the Committee now, debate it at the Report stage and take it off again at Third Reading.
524
What I did in opposition was rather different. I tried to concentrate the minds of the then government by putting the code of conduct in an amendment and immediately proposing a huge number of amendments to my own. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other distinguished Ministers thought that that was outrageous, that I was doing things which had never been done before and was abusing the procedures of the House. Generally speaking, I got a lot of stick for it.
However, I believe that I was right and that what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is trying to do is defensible. I just do not believe that he is doing in the right way. It would have been clearer for all of us if instead of having a number of amendments in this and previous groups he had tabled as the two schedules what are now Amendments Nos. 192 and 193. By the way, they are in the wrong place—of course, they should have appeared in the Marshalled List after Schedule 2. That is the fault of the Public Bill Office and not my fault.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I must defend the Public Bill Office, which has shown enormous courage in the face of adversity in having to cope with two such enormous amendments. It has been stoic and splendid. The Public Bill Office took this step because it correctly recognised that huge amendments in the middle of the Marshalled List would distort the picture. Therefore, as the substance of the two amendments would not be debated today, merely the Question of whether they should be part of the Bill, it was regarded as appropriate to place them at the end of the Marshalled List. I say most humbly to the Minister that on this occasion the Public Bill Office got it absolutely right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, persuaded the Public Bill Office of that conclusion, I accept what he says. However, I believe that it is wrong. I believe that the correct procedure would have been to place the amendments after Schedule 2, which is paved by Clause 5, and we could have debated all the matters at the same time.
However, we have passed by a number of amendments which would change the memorandum and articles and the commonhold community statement and there are more to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has not spoken. Perhaps I may make a suggestion to him. I believe that rather than put the provision on the face of the Bill at great expense and at the risk of considerable confusion, the best course would be if he and I, Ministers from the Lord Chancellor's Department and other Members of the Committee who are interested met between now and the Report stage. We should take the matter offline and undertake to return to it at Report in whatever form could be agreed. However, I do not believe that we can deal with the matter in the way that is being proposed. It would not be fair to include another 36 pages in the Bill with the intention of removing them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: In order that I may locate the answers to my questions, will the Minister be kind enough to say whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, raised the points earlier today or during the Grand Committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was today and it was not necessarily the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who raised them. I believe that I raised them in response to the noble Lord.
Lord Kingsland: I hear what the Minister says and I feel that I am condemned if I do and condemned if I do not. During the Bill's previous passage through your Lordships' House, I tabled not the Government's text but the text I thought the Government ought to have drafted. And what did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say? He said that I was wrong to provide my own solution. He said that first I should set out as amendments the text of the Government's solution and then table amendments to that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was saying that that was wrong because if it were agreed it would have meant that some parts of the memorandum and articles would be statutory and some parts would not. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has nothing to lose. If he agrees to withdraw the amendment now and to discuss the matter in as formal a manner as he wishes between now and the Report stage, it can still be dealt with in the way he wishes then. In other words, he can table the schedules and propose to amend them as he wishes at the Report stage.
Lord Jacobs: Is it proposed that the regulations be debated privately outside the Chamber after which amendments can be tabled, or is it proposed, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we should be able to debate the regulations in the House even though the final result is not included on the face of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is proposed that the draft documents should be debated privately and that there should then be an opportunity for them to be debated on the Floor of the House. Any regulations which follow legislation will be considered by the House in the usual way and nothing would derogate from that.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has not intervened in the debate and therefore I do not know what position the Liberal Democrat Party is likely to take on the matter. In all the circumstances, the best course is for me to accept the offer of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to have a meeting between now and the Report stage. I am most grateful to him for making it and I know that it was made in a constructive spirit. Let us go ahead with the meeting and see where we go from there. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Constitution]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 15, line 24, at beginning insert "Subject to section "Limited liability partnerships",".
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 41, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 89, 94, 142 and 144. I believe that about two years ago the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, piloted through this House the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. That Act introduced a new form of body corporate which is particularly suitable for small businesses, small companies and simple organisations consisting of only a few people where one wants a corporate structure with limited liability without complicated memorandum and articles, boards of directors and so on. That appears to be an eminently suitable structure for a commonhold which has, say, fewer than 10 members, all of whom expect to be able to participate, broadly speaking, in the management of the property. Certainly, if one is looking at a small property—for example, a converted house which has five or six flats—that appears to be the absolutely obvious way to do it. It is simpler and involves a good deal less formality.
The purpose of these amendments is to provide an opportunity to use the limited liability partnership structure instead of the considerably more formal structure of a company limited by guarantee in the case of commonhold associations and right-to-manage and right-to-enfranchise companies. One has no board of directors, but a simple agreement between the members rather than the full memorandum and articles. That is plainly an appropriate form—in many cases it will be the most appropriate form—which should be included as an option, leaving the choice to the members when forming a commonhold association, RTM or RTE company. I believe that it is a pity if the Government, having invented this new form of corporate body, refuse to allow it to be used for a purpose for which it is particularly well suited. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I believe that I am right in saying that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, contemplated the introduction of a similar Bill in 1996 he had in mind a sui generis structure for the commonhold association. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has suggested that a limited liability partnership is an appropriate form. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is well aware, we suggested last February that it should be a company limited by shares on the grounds that it is a myth to believe that all unit-holders will be the same in terms of their financial interest in a commonhold and their financial outgoings. Earlier, I spoke at great length on that matter, and I have no intention whatever of repeating the long speech that I then

527
made. I simply repeat that I need some convincing that a company limited by guarantee is the appropriate vehicle for a commonhold association.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that on this occasion the grouping that we have proposed is acceptable. Here we have done two things. First, we have included with Amendments Nos. 41 and 50 in Part 1 dealing with commonhold in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the comparable amendments in Part 2 which deal with leasehold. I am glad the noble Lord agrees that that is the right course to take. Secondly, for a reason which I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, understands, we have also included Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 which would make the corporate vehicle for a commonhold association a company limited by shares rather than by guarantee. The reason for our objection to both proposals is very similar.
I start by turning to the amendments relating to limited liability partnerships. When the matter was raised earlier we took the easy way out because limited liability partnerships came into force only on 6th April of this year. The easy argument was that we did not know what would happen to them and possibly we should not place on the face of a Bill an untried piece of legislation. I cannot use that argument with the same force now because the process has been going since 6th April. I must tell the Committee that about 850 firms have registered as limited liability partnerships since the legislation came into force. As we originally expected, a good number of them are professions and include, for example, accountants, solicitors and architects, but they also include couriers, electrical contractors, design consultants and a Conservative club. (I do not know how that works.) Although that process continues, neither the number of inquiries nor actual registrations is as high as originally intended, and Companies House is considering reducing its limited liability partnership team in the light of experience over the past few months.
I turn to the more substantive point rather than the premature argument. The amendments would give the Secretary of State the power to make an order and regulations at an unspecified point in the future to provide that commonhold associations, right-to-manage and right-to-enfranchise companies may be set up as limited liability partnerships as an alternative to the present structure of a company limited by guarantee.
It is probably easier if I talk simply in terms of the commonhold association, although the arguments apply to all three vehicles. I am glad that the Committee has had the opportunity to look at this again. There remains an element of unknown quantity about limited liability partnerships. Although 850 are registered, they have hardly started work. The main catalyst for the 2000 Act was concern expressed by professional partnerships about the increasingly high levels of damages awarded against them in professional negligence actions. However, they are not moving from a company limited by guarantee but
528
from a partnership of the more traditional form. Clearly, the conceptual foundations of the 2000 Act do not apply to commonhold associations.
Section 2(1)(a) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 provides that in order to establish a company as a limited liability partnership, it must be a lawful business carried out with a view to profit. As the Bill proceeded I explained that there was no intention in the genesis and evolution of limited liability partnerships that they should be used by organisations not operating with a view to profit. That is really the nub of the issue as far as we are concerned. A commonhold association may make a profit, but that is not the object of the company; the object is to carry out the functions of a commonhold association in relation to the body named in the memorandum and articles of association.
In residential commonhold, the commonhold association's main concern will be to facilitate the growth and development of a thriving community of unit-holders and to enable them to play an active role in determining the future of that community. We can make similar points about the right-to-manage and right-to-enfranchise companies. That is the fundamental difference and why we would oppose the limited liability partnership route.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 44 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, we cannot accept the idea of a commonhold association having objects other than those specified in the Bill and memorandum and articles. The objects stated in the memorandum and articles give a fuller exposition of the object of the commonhold association in Clause 33 of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may argue that Section 2(1)(a) of the 2000 Act could be disapplied in order to establish any or each of our three companies as limited liability partnerships. However, that is a fundamental clause in the Limited Liability Partnerships Act. It appears second in order only to a provision establishing that a new form of body corporate called the limited liability partnership is to be made available and as such is prescriptive of one of the keystones of the limited liability partnership. Therefore, I must respond to the noble Lord by asking a question: why use the limited liability partnership format for a commonhold association if it will be necessary to tamper with one of the underlying premises on which it is based? It seems slightly perverse to choose as the format for a commonhold association a corporate body that will require fairly extensive surgery on its conceptual basis in order to integrate with commonhold.
We have previously debated these issues. Therefore, on the basis of the updated and revised—in the light of experience—responses which I am now able to give I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not pursue his amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am rather sorry about it because it seems to me that if limited liability partnerships are being

529
incorporated at a lower level than expected, the Government might rather welcome something which may lead to the incorporation of a few hundred more of them and make the whole operation more successful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The object of the exercise is not to please government but to provide a corporate vehicle which corporate bodies want.
Lord Goodhart: Indeed. The Limited Liability Partnerships Act refers to the need for a business to be carried on at a profit. That dates back to the definition of partnership in the partnership Act because unincorporated partnerships do and, for a very long time, have had to carry on business at a profit. On the other hand, I am not convinced that that restriction is fundamental. The limited liability partnership seems to me a suitable form of incorporation for a body which is small enough so that all its members are involved in the conduct of its business or activities, whether or not those are carried on with a view to profit. Of course there would be no drafting problem with disapplying that particular provision in the Limited Liability Partnerships Act. However, this is by no means the most important amendment to the Bill. In the circumstances it is unlikely that we will have any strong desire to return to it. Certainly for the time being, therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 46 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next two amendments are improperly marshalled. Amendment No. 48 comes before Amendment No. 47.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Commonhold association]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Duty to manage]:
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Voting]:
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Enforcement and compensation]:
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 63 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Commonhold assessment]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 72 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Reserve fund]:
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 79 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 18, line 18, at end insert—
"(3A) The assets of a fund established and maintained by virtue of this section shall be treated as monies reserved for future expenditure.
(3B) Any sums paid into a fund established and maintained by virtue of this section by a unit-holder, and any investments representing those sums, shall (together with any income accruing thereon) be held by the commonhold association on trust either as a single fund, or, if the commonhold association deems appropriate, as two or more separate funds.
(3C) The commonhold association shall hold any trust fund—

(a) on trust to defray costs incurred in connection with the matters for which the relevant contributions were payable (whether incurred by the commonhold association itself or by another person), and

(b) subject to that, on trust for the persons who are the contributing unit-holders for the time being.

(3D) Subject to subsections (3F) and (3G), the contributing unit-holders shall be treated as entitled by virtue of subsection (3C)(b) to such shares in the residue of any such fund as are proportionate to their respective liabilities to pay a proportion of the levy set under subsection (2).
(3E) If the Secretary of State by order so provides, any sums standing to the credit of any trust fund may, instead of being invested in any other manner authorised by law, be invested in such manner as may be specified in the order; and any such order may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with the order.
(3F) On the transfer of a commonhold unit, the unit-holder shall not be entitled to any part of any trust fund, and any part of such trust fund which is attributable to relevant contributions paid in accordance with this section shall accordingly continue to be held on the trusts referred to in subsection (3C).
(3G) Any trust fund established under this section shall be exempt from any tax in respect of contributions made to it by the unit holders, whether (apart from this provision) a liability to tax may be imposed on the commonhold association or the contributing unit holder."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 80, I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the fact that this was a matter that we debated at some length on a previous occasion. I have tabled the amendment today because I believe strongly that the Government's judgment on this matter is plainly wrong. In my submission, it is not only right but logical that the reserve fund of an association should be held as a tax exempt trust fund and that the interest accrued only on the sum should be vulnerable to taxation. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope I do not disappoint the noble Lord in that it is I who is to respond and not my noble friend Lord McIntosh with whom he tangled on the last occasion.
Lord Kingsland: I shall certainly get a different, if not a better, answer.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendment seeks to introduce into commonhold a form of fund holding developed for leasehold funds by Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. As Members of the Committee will know, the principal purpose of

531
Section 42 was to establish a rule that funds held by the landlord or his agent for future works should be held in trust for the lessees.
Section 42 was not designed to exempt service charges from taxation, though it was suggested at the time that it would have the useful effect of ensuring that tax treatment of such funds was more equitable and less capricious than appears to have been the case then.
The provision that service charges be held on trust by the payee for the tenants as beneficiaries was introduced to improve and standardise the manner in which service charges and sinking funds are managed while they remain in the hands of the landlord. Section 42 implements the recommendation made in paragraph 7.3.5 of the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Management of Privately Owned Blocks of Flats, the Nugee Report of 1985, which stated that:
"Where the money has not yet been expended it is important that funds are safeguarded against the risk that the landlord becomes insolvent or misappropriates funds. We therefore recommend that it should be held in a trust fund".
It is clear that the primary benefits of the statutory trust fund for leasehold service charges in Section 42 of the 1987 Act are twofold. First, money paid by tenants to the payee, as defined in Section 42(1) is safe from creditors in the event of the payee's bankruptcy or liquidation. This is particularly important because in the majority of cases the payee will be the landlord. It is evident that any wrongdoing or mismanagement of funds by him should not result in financial hardship to tenants. Secondly, Section 42 ensures that the payee is subject to the duties of trustees and will therefore be liable for a breach of trust if the money is misappropriated or not adequately safeguarded or invested. The trust set-up also enables the tracing of service charge funds under the arrangements for trust funds.
These considerations, important as they are, do not apply within commonhold. The commonhold association is a company whose members are those who pay the money into the funds. They appoint and dismiss the directors of the company, they approve the objects of expenditure and the setting of budgets and have absolute control over all aspects of the company under company law.
The directors who act on their behalf are bound by their fiduciary duty to act honestly and bona fide in the interests of the company and are also subject to the sanctions available both under the Companies Act and the general criminal law. They must produce accounts and answer for their contents. Commonhold association funds are funds of the company, not of the directors. With respect, we believe that that is a significant distinction.
Clearly, the purposes for which Section 42 was included in the 1987 Act do not apply in commonhold and it is not necessary for the directors of the commonhold association to be placed under trustee duties in relation to reserve fund moneys.
532
I hope that that explanation is sufficiently clear to persuade the noble Lord on this occasion and that he will see some merit in the way in which we have advanced this matter.
Lord Kingsland: I think that the noble Baroness has approached the solution at which she finally arrived from a different angle from that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The idea that this Government should not be seamless is utterly unacceptable. I agree with every word spoken by my noble friend Lady Scotland. I would have said the same myself.
Lord Kingsland: I do not say that the noble Lord does not agree with his noble friend Lady Scotland. I wish merely to point out that when this matter was discussed on the last occasion, the argument used by the noble Lord in support of this conclusion was entirely different.
I am not surprised at the words of the noble Baroness. I shall reflect on her answer and consider whether this matter might be brought back on Report with the possibility of putting it to your Lordships' House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Rectification of documents]:
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Enlargement]:
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 57 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 64 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 84A:
After Clause 64, insert the following new clause—
"COMMONHOLD COMMISSIONER AND REGIONAL BOARDS
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish the post of Commonhold Commissioner.
(2) The Commonhold Commissioner may determine such disputes and complaints arising within a commonhold association as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(3) Regulations may provide for the establishment of Commonhold Regional Boards which may act on behalf of the Commonhold Commissioner.

533
(4) The Commonhold Commissioner shall, on receipt of an application for an order under subsection (2) above—

(a) determine the application himself, or

(b) remit the application to the appropriate regional board for determination, as he considers appropriate.

(5) The power to confer jurisdiction on a tribunal under section 64(3) above shall include the power to confer jurisdiction on the Commonhold Commissioner."
The noble Baroness said: I tabled the amendment after having spent most of the summer Recess in Australia. I lived in a strata title unit in New South Wales, an arrangement which is the equivalent of commonhold. That experience taught me a great deal about the difficulties that people encounter in such apartment blocks. It also made me curious to learn as much as I could about the legalities of the New South Wales system.
I invested in a definitive volume on the subject, Strata Title Units in New South Wales, although I should tell noble Lords that it was horribly expensive. It provides all the information required to respond to many commonly asked questions and is written in such a way that ordinary people can understand it. I was interested to learn that the author of the book had been the commissioner for strata title. I wondered why a commissioner had been appointed. I learned from the book the reasons why the position was created. My proposal for the establishment of a commonhold commissioner and regional boards seeks to create a parallel with the strata title commissioner.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the text of this book. However, first I should point out that many people lived in strata title accommodation before any specific law had been enacted to control such accommodation. Until a law was passed in July 1973 and enacted in 1974, any dispute between individuals or bodies corporate,
"could only be remedied by instituting proceedings in the Supreme Court. In many instances the nature of the dispute neither warranted the attention of that Court nor was it practicable to institute those proceedings. It was for this reason that once a dispute arose, whether between residents in the scheme or between a resident and the body corporate, it lingered on until such time as common sense prevailed or the disputants found some other means by which it might be resolved".
People became extremely frustrated when they found that their problems could not be dealt with in a simple and straightforward manner. The book goes on to explain that:
"The Act creates the position of Strata Titles Commissioner"
—whose equivalent would be a commonhold commissioner—
"and invests in the holder of that position the power to determine a wide range of disputes or complaints capable of arising within a strata scheme. It further provides that within a prescribed area, there shall be a Strata Titles Board".
534
I shall not go into the detail at this point because later I can give the book to the Minister, who might be interested to read it. However, I shall cover one or two further points:
"[The board] is invested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear certain types of dispute which, through the nature of those disputes, merit judicial determination. In the case of any dispute capable of being determined by the Commissioner, there is no right of appearance of the parties before the Commissioner".
The text covers the details of application and so forth. It then states that:
"It should be appreciated … that only disputes arising within a strata scheme, are capable of being settled by either the Commissioner or a Board. Disputes arising under any other form of property ownership".
are not covered by this jurisdiction.
"Furthermore, any dispute arising between the participants of two different strata schemes or between a participant in a strata scheme and an occupier of adjoining premises unrelated to the scheme, are equally incapable of being determined under this legislation".
The book contains a great list of the kinds of cases that can be determined. I was particularly interested in one example—there are a number of examples given—which is exactly the kind of thing that occurs even now in other types of properties. Example No 1 states:
"The body corporate has resolved to invest the moneys which it holds in its sinking fund for a period of five years. A number of proprietors in the scheme are of the opinion that the bulk of moneys will be required within the next two years to pay for repainting of the common property. Those proprietors would be entitled to seek an order",
from the commissioner requiring that this be taken into account and a decision made.
The essence of it is that it would be an inexpensive way of operating the system. If, as the Government claim, they really want to see commonhold come in, it is important to place a provision such as this into the Bill at this stage so that if at a later time it was found that such a commissioner was needed, one could be appointed quite simply. It will be no good at all if we have to come back with further primary legislation to do this. That is the kind of thing that never happens soon enough. If we consider how leasehold and commonhold have taken years to reach this point, it would certainly be a long time before there was enough parliamentary time to come back again on this.
I do not think that it is at all parallel to the ombudsman scheme referred to in Clause 41. It is quite different from that. The idea is to make it easy for people to handle disputes and to reduce the very high cost of the legal fees involved. I was impressed in New South Wales by how simple all kinds of tenancy matters are and how minimal are the costs for both landlord and tenant compared to this country in terms of letting or sale of a lease. It was quite enlightening for me to see the difference.
It is a simple idea. I am putting it forward today in order that the Government may give thought to the matter. I obviously do not expect the amendment to be accepted without thorough investigation, but it deserves thorough investigation as it may prove to

535
work very well. It would show that the Government are really serious about wanting to see more commonhold in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: In rising to support the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, perhaps I may clear up a misconception on the part of the Government. At Second Reading, I ventured to suggest that, for all the Government's good intentions, the commonhold system would not automatically lead to sweetness and light all round. In his reply, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said:
"We would be grateful to hear from the noble Lord"—
that is myself—
"on any detailed points of concern so that we can work with him to try to reduce as much as possible any problems in the working of commonhold".—[Official Report, 5/7/01; col. 919.]
I am afraid that I have no suggestions to make.
I am not blaming the Government for anything; I think that they have done as good a job as they can. The problem lies with human nature. It is in the nature of neighbours to quarrel sooner or later. Those in semi-detached or terraced houses will quarrel more frequently than those in detached houses; those in flats will quarrel more frequently than those in semidetached or terraced houses. In flats, noise comes not only laterally but from above and below, and there is the added problem of the eventual use or misuse of common parts.
This applies equally of course to leasehold flats where the lessees have the right to manage, as I know from personal experience, albeit at one remove, as I have mentioned two or three times before. I do not think anything can be done about it. You can draw up a very rigid legal framework, but there still has to be give and take between occupants of flats which cannot be encompassed within a legal framework. There are bound to be disputes and the proposal of the noble Baroness seems as good a way as any of resolving them.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: May I say straightaway to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, how pleased we are that she is involving herself with such energy in this regard. I shall be very pleased indeed to see the results of her investigations. I can reassure her that we are committed to the development of commonhold and want to see it thrive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is widely experienced in the ways of commonhold in other jurisdictions. As she is aware, while developing this Bill we have quite shamelessly borrowed good ideas from a number of other jurisdictions. We make no apologies for that. We are aware of the good work done by the strata title commissioners and their counterparts around the world, but we wonder whether the dispute resolution function is not better carried out in the way that we are proposing.
To arrive at the noble Baroness's model, particularly in the early stages of commonhold, would be prohibitively expensive. Of course there will be disputes within commonhold, and of course they will
536
need to be settled—preferably by a body with relevant expertise—but a specifically appointed commissioner, with supporting staff and suitable accommodation, is not the only way to approach the problem. As I say, in the early stages of commonhold development it is perhaps not justifiable.
As the noble Baroness will be aware, we are keen to promote alternative dispute resolution processes in the commonhold context. As the noble Baroness mentioned, Clause 41 provides for the approval of an ombudsman scheme. Our thinking at the moment is that the commonhold ombudsman scheme should be very closely modelled on that of the Independent Housing Ombudsman, whose input into our planning process has been most welcome and has been viewed by many as a great success.
One of the possibilities open to us would be to appoint the Independent Housing Ombudsman as the commonhold ombudsman in the first instance. This would bring us expertise, a wide range of alternative dispute resolution processes, excellent value for money and a system well used to dealing with disputes from all around the country which works well and is well respected.
In other jurisdictions, as the noble Baroness said, the equivalent of the proposed commissioner has other duties such as the maintaining of registers, zoning and planning regulation and the collection and scrutiny of accounts. All of these functions are carried out by other distinct bodies in England and Wales, and the noble Baroness has recognised this in proposing only that the commissioner should deal with disputes.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Baroness that we are taking dispute resolution seriously and intend to see that it is in good hands from the outset. An appropriate mixture of locally served notices, an ombudsman, tribunals and courts ought to provide all that we need to resolve any dispute arising in commonhold.
We shall look at this matter because it is our intention to have a system which will give effective resolution, speedily and in a cost-efficient way, for those who engage in commonhold. We gratefully take into account everything that the noble Baroness said in relation to this matter. We thank her for the interest and the energy with which she has raised these matters in the past. It has given us great pause for thought.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for her reply. I would draw her attention to the fact that the amendment does not insist on the making of an appointment but gives the power to make such an appointment. While I appreciate that at the outset it would be costly, by the time such an appointment was to be made it would represent a great saving on legal costs. That is why I think it is well worth considering. I ask the Minister to look at this in detail between now and the next stage of the Bill.
One example that I did not refer to concerned someone who wished to put a barbecue where it would offend the nostrils of everyone above. That is the kind

537
of situation that was resolved. It may not be appropriate in our climate, but it is a typical instance of what can be simply resolved.
Of course, it was not ever done without a fee. The applicant always had to pay a fee, and a separate fee for every separate item in dispute. The intention was that the system should be not exactly self-financing, but inexpensive.
I understand that the setting up of the structures could be expensive, especially if it involved duplication. Nevertheless, I should like to see a provision of this kind on the face of the Bill to permit its introduction at a time when commonhold became common by which time a large number of people would be involved and it might then be an economy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Premises to which Chapter applies]:
7 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 33, line 8, at end insert ", and
(d) no part of the premises is let on a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56) (security of tenure for business, professional and other tenants) applies."
The noble Lord said: When this matter was debated previously in Grand Committee there seems to have been agreement on all sides that there is a problem with mixed development buildings—in that it is generally inappropriate for the residential tenants to be managing the commercial parts of the property. Commercial tenants expect commercial management of premises.
A landlord's involvement in the management of the commercial part is generally much more time consuming than in relation to the residential part. The buildings in the residential parts must be kept in repair; but there is not on the whole a large dispute about what needs to be done. Disputes are mostly about timing and cost. Decisions regarding commercial premises, however, have to be taken on a much more proactive basis. The landlord has to decide what works have to be done to make the premises attractive for new tenants. Moreover, commercial tenants, where the landlord has the repairing obligation, will be much more demanding than the residential tenants, who have to bear the repair cost themselves through a service charge.
That problem was recognised on all sides in our earlier debates. So what was the Government's response? The primary argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was that allowing the amendment would mean that landlords could evade the residential tenant's right to manage by converting small parts of the development into business premises.
538
The noble Lord gave the example of a landlord converting a broom cupboard into an office and an attic into a factory.
If that is as good an argument as the Government can produce, there should be little opposition to my amendment. It is obvious that, in order to convert a broom cupboard into an office, there must be planning permission. I should like to see an attempt to install a steam hammer for metal pressing in the attic of the average British flat! No doubt there might be a risk of a landlord seeking to convert part of a block of flats into commercial premises; but the reality is that this will not occur in any but a very few instances. Residential blocks are, by and large, simply not suitable for conversion into commercial premises.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also drew attention to what is now Clause 94(6)(a) of the Bill. This, he said, meant that commercial parts would not be subject to the right to manage. Let me say at once that the clause is uncharacteristically opaquely drafted. If the intention is that the responsibility for the commercial parts should rest with the landlord, it does not say so. Moreover, it leaves almost unworkable demarcation disputes. Just what are,
"functions with respect to a matter concerning only a part of the premises consisting of",
in the case under discussion; namely, a commercial unit?
A fairly standard matter that arises in the case of shops on the ground floor of mixed developments relates to the frontage of the shop and the type of advertisements that may be displayed. After the right to manage has been exercised, is that a landlord's responsibility, or an RTM company's responsibility?
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, suggested in Grand Committee that landlords should be given 999-year leases on the commercial part. I for my part can see that this could be a most productive way forward, although it is noticeable—although not necessarily significant—that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did not address the suggestion.
It is the view of this side of the Committee that the Government's proposals for mixed developments are, as currently formulated, unhappy. The only practical solution to these problems, for the time being, is to exclude mixed developments from the scope of the automatic right to manage. This would not prejudice residential tenants with bad landlords, because the current rights to manage would still exist. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The noble Lord's amendment would have the effect of disapplying the right to manage for all properties where any part of the premises was subject to a business tenancy. As he said in introducing the amendment, the matter was discussed previously in Grand Committee and my department has given it earnest consideration.

539
As my noble friend Lord Whitty explained previously, we cannot accept such an amendment. The right to manage is intended to allow leaseholders who have a majority stake in a property to take over the management of that property. The amendment would have precisely the opposite effect; indeed, it would prevent leaseholders who had acquired 99 per cent of a property on long leases being able to manage the block merely because the remaining 1 per cent was subject to a business tenancy. It would open up a serious loophole which an unscrupulous landlord would be eager to seize upon. He could frustrate the right to manage by letting a small part of his property on a business lease. It must be remembered that business leases extend way beyond factories; they extend to professional activity as well. The practical effect of the amendment would thus be to allow landlords to put any property that they wanted outside the scope of the right to manage. I accept that that is not the intention, but that is what would happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested in Grand Committee that if the amendment were not acceptable—it is not, because it excludes a significant body of people from the protection afforded—we might wish to consider bringing forward an amendment of our own which had the effect of excluding the commercial element of a mixed-use block from the right to manage. Other Members of the Committee strongly supported his approach. I mention my noble friend Lord Lea. I appreciate that Amendment No. 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is intended to achieve that. But, as I have said, we believe that it would go much further in its effect and that it would also prevent the leaseholders being able to manage the common parts.
Those who have been involved in this area over a long period of time—much longer than I—will know that we have looked long and hard at how best to apply the right to manage to mixed-use properties. They will also have heard us set out the very real problems that would be encountered in any attempt to impose a statutory division of management responsibilities within an interdependent block.
We have reflected hard on these proposals since the Bill received its Second Reading but still find them intractable. The fundamental difficulty is that responsibility for the fabric of a structure as a whole for related matters such as insurance for the structure and for any parts or services which are common to both the domestic and the non-domestic sections of the block could not sensibly or realistically be divided between the two parties. It would leave the landlord responsible for the fabric of the property. Only those responsibilities that relate solely to the interior of the domestic parts and any common parts exclusively associated with them would transfer to the RTM company. In most cases, that would be of little use or benefit to the residential leaseholders. All the major management decisions and most costly aspects of management would remain with the landlord, who would continue to recoup the costs from leaseholders
540
through the service charge. The right to manage would in effect be totally emasculated simply because 1 per cent of the property was a business tenancy.
I appreciate that the amendments may stem in part from concern that the RTM company might lack the motivation and expertise to manage the non-domestic part successfully. I stress that under the Bill there would be no question of the RTM company becoming involved in the commercial relationship between the landlord and his business tenants. Clause 93(6)(a) explicitly reserves to the landlord all management functions relating exclusively to units that are not leased to a qualifying tenant. Although the problem is difficult, we remain satisfied that the Bill's approach is the best solution available at this time.
We resist also Amendment No. 87, which would remove the provisions that permit the right to manage to be acquired for mixed-use properties with no more than 25 per cent in non-residential use. I appreciate that, if we were to accept either of the other amendments, that threshold would not be needed, but as we do not accept them, we need to retain the threshold. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord will not be surprised that I am exceedingly disappointed. Mixed-development buildings form a central part of the Government's thinking for 21st century urban development. It is crucial that the people who inhabit those developments can enjoy the right blend of legal rights and duties to ensure that they have the incentive to maintain the fabric of those buildings properly. If the Government's town and country planning philosophy in relation to mixed development is to succeed, it is vital that the Government find the appropriate legal framework.
I accept entirely the Minister's assurance that much cerebration took place over the summer to find a better balance. I am despondent that—despite the intellectual resources that the department has at its disposal, which are considerable and renowned—-a solution cannot be found. I will reflect on the Minister's response. It is likely that I shall return on Report with a modified proposal. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Premises excluded from right to manage]:
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 6 shall be agreed to?
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I refer to those tenants who have enfranchised their properties and now find themselves under a management scheme over which they have no control and the terms of which are harsher and more expensive than a leasehold. Will tenants who enfranchise any property under the

541
scheme find themselves more adversely affected? I was telephoned on that subject and have been promised chapter and verse. Why does the Bill not help freeholders of houses in a mews or other location? If the landlord applies for and secures a management scheme, that could have a dramatically adverse effect on the former leaseholders.
Apparently, different policies apply to different major estates. With some, as soon as the property has been enfranchised and is freehold, those concerned are told, "You are on your own. It is up to you what to do". Other estates insist on major repair obligations. In one case quoted to me, the tenants have to pay for a warden to patrol the mews. Can anything be done by amending Schedule 6 or could the issue be dealt with at a future stage?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not sure that this is the appropriate schedule, but the debate gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the problem that the noble Baroness identified. We are reflecting on the correct approach. I cannot guarantee at the moment that the correct approach is to amend the Bill but we will let the noble Baroness know how we intend to deal with the issue.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 71 [RTM companies]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 33, line 26, leave out "a" and insert "an"
The noble Lord said: The phrase "a RTM company" is shorthand for "a right-to-manage company" but the Bill does not define an RTM company as a right-to-manage company. In other words, "a RTM company" is, as a matter of statute, simply an RTM company—not shorthand for a right-to-manage company. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: This can be described as an Earl Ferrers amendment. Late one evening during the progress of the House of Lords Bill, we had an extensive debate and a Division on whether the reference should be to "a hereditary peer" or "an hereditary peer". On that occasion, I disagreed with the noble Earl but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is right. The Bill ought to be drafted in a way that reads the same as it will be pronounced. I do not imagine that even anybody on the Government Benches would talk about "a RTM company".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Everyone had the same thought. Maybe it is a blast from the past. I am told it is simply a matter of drafting convention. I am informed that where a Bill creates a new entity such as the RTM company, the standard practice is to refer to it as "a". That does not take the matter much further forward but clearly parliamentary counsel proceed on the basis of convention. I do not feel remotely confident to intervene. Throughout the progress of the Bill, I will force myself to refer to "a RTM company"—and respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: If that is so, drafting conventions are hardly ambassadors for the English language.
It seems to me that this is an opportunity for the Minister to create some constitutional law. He can exploit the opportunity by making a distinction here between abbreviations that are abbreviations of a full statutory definition and abbreviations that are not. In other words, it might be understandable if "RTM company" had been defined somewhere in the Bill as a right-to-manage company in full. But in this case it has not been so defined.
"An RTM company" is, as a matter of statute, simply an RTM company. In those circumstances, to describe it as "an RTM company" is not only an abuse of the English language; it also makes any convention that insists that that be the case seem absurd. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 33, line 28, leave out "guarantee" and insert "shares with at least the minimum paid up capital, divided into "A" shares and "B" shares"
The noble Lord said: This grouping includes Amendments Nos. 92 and 93. I shall speak, first, to Amendment No. 92, and then deal with Amendments Nos. 91 and 93. In saying that this amendment is an important one, one has to acknowledge that every amendment is, in a sense, an important amendment when one is addressing a legislative document.
We believe that this amendment is essential in order to make the right to manage workable. The proposal put forward here is a modification of what we proposed when the Bill was last in Committee. The proposal that we made on the previous occasion was that RTM companies should be ordinary limited companies with a share capital. The reason for that proposal is simple: it is important to realise that an RTM company is a small business. Its business is the management of blocks of flats. No business can be run without some working capital.
In Grand Committee, I gave what I thought to be some simple examples in that respect. Let us suppose that a contract for works is let to builders. As not infrequently happens, the works prove more extensive than anticipated and the costs overrun the estimate. Where will the RTM get the money to pay for the overrun? It will only have raised the estimate by way of service charges; and getting in more service charges cannot be done that quickly. No bank will lend money because the RTM company has nothing to offer by way of security. Hence my proposal that RTM companies should have some share capital.
Noble Lords may wonder what response the Government gave to this point in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"I appreciate that the leaseholders' company which takes over the management of the property needs to have access to funds".
So, I respectfully concluded that the Government accept that RTM companies need to have some money. So far, so good. But what did the noble Lord

543
propose should be clone to solve the problem? The answer is precisely nothing. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, went on to say that requiring,
"share capital would price a lot of leaseholders out from the start and create far too great a threshold for them to pass through into the right-to-manage company".—[Official Report, 27/2/01; col. CWH 125]
With the greatest respect to the Minister, that is not an answer. If an RTM company needs money to operate, it needs money to operate. Just saying that it is all too hard for the tenants is simply, with respect, naive. The RTM companies run a great risk of failing unless they have adequate working capital.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that even if tenants did raise share capital in order to start an RTM company—I trust that If am not misinterpreting him here, though I am sure that he would be the first to point that out to me if that were the case—the first thing that the new RTM company would do is give all the tenants a year's service charge holiday. The directors of any RTM company that did any such thing might well find themselves the subject of directors' disqualification proceedings if the RTM did, in consequence, fall into financial difficulties.
None the less, we on this side of the Committee sought to modify our proposal in order to make it more attractive to the Government. The proposal put forward in the amendment now before us is that RTM companies remain companies limited by guarantee but with a substantial guarantee given by the tenants. Under the Bill as currently formulated, RTM companies will be formed with each member having to contribute £1 to the company in the event of the RTM company being wound up. On that basis an RTM company is effectively worthless.
Under my proposal, the guarantee given by each tenant would, in broad terms, have to be the equivalent of two years' service charges. The advantage of this proposal is that an RTM company would have a borrowing capacity from the start to enable it to obtain some working capital from a bank. Yet, at the same time, the tenants would not actually have to part with money at the start. As I understand it, that was the main objection to the original proposal. Thus our amendment would lead to RTM companies being much better able to cope with the demands that they are likely to face from the outset. I commend it to the Committee.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 91 and 93. We believe that these amendments are essential in order to make the right to manage workable. There are two aspects involved: the first is to ensure that RTM companies are adequately capitalised, which I have just discussed; and the second is to recognise the landlord's important interest in the RTM company.
The Bill proposes that landlords should be members of the RTM company with one vote. The landlord would have no right to sit on the board. The extent of the landlord's rights would be to attend general meetings of the company and be out-voted every time by the tenant members of the RTM company.
I understand that the Liberal Democrats propose that the landlord should have no involvement at all in RTM companies. I have to say that I find that position difficult to understand. In any event, I am not sure that it would be compliant with the Human Rights Act because the landlord would be deprived of an involvement in a property in which he has an interest.
The only way properly to recognise the landlord's legitimate interest in the property is to allow him to sit on the board of directors. The technical way in which that can be done is to create two classes of shares—A shares, which are held by the tenant, and B shares, which are held by the landlord. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Our amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, would remove the landlord from membership of the RTM company. However, that amendment is the first amendment of the next group, so I shall not speak to it now, although the subject has been raised.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not be upset. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not be upset when I say that I do not intend to reply to that amendment until it has been moved.
The group to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, spoke refers to the constitution of the RTM company. As has been made clear earlier in the Bill, we believe that it should be a company limited by guarantee. The noble Lord proposed that it should be a company limited by shares when we discussed the matter earlier in connection with commonhold. The general proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was that all the companies provided for in the Bill should be capable of being limited liability partnerships. Although the point was only touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I should perhaps deal with it now.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tabled a similar amendment in the previous Committee proceedings and my noble friend Lord Whitty explained why such changes were not appropriate. I do not think that anything has been said today to change the position fundamentally or to persuade us otherwise.
To remind noble Lords of our reasoning, we considered it important in the first place that the three different companies provided for in the Bill—the RTM company, the RTE company and the commonhold association—should have the same basic structure. That will allow those leaseholders who wish to do so to move with relative ease through the three. Where they have acquired the right to manage, the leaseholders may then wish to use the same company as the vehicle to purchase the freehold. The amendment would prevent that happening. In particular, it would mean that leaseholders would always have to set up separate companies to acquire the right to manage and to purchase the freehold. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has now proposed that the commonhold association, but not, so far at least, the

545
RTE company, should be a company limited by shares. He will know from the debate on his earlier amendments that that proposition is not acceptable to the Government.
The noble Lord suggested in the previous Committee that it would be possible for a company limited by shares to mutate into a company limited by guarantee. We sought advice on that interesting view and have been told that that cannot happen. Furthermore, that does not address the fundamental issue of how a single company can be both an RTM company and an RTE company at the same time. If we were to accept the noble Lord's amendments, one would have to be limited by guarantee and the other by share. I cannot see how it is possible for the same company to be limited simultaneously in two different ways.
Our more fundamental objection is to the twin proposition that the RTM company, as a company limited by share, should have a high minimum amount of share capital and that individual members should take on an equally high minimum personal liability. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly noted in the previous Committee, the formulae suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would effectively price many leaseholders out of exercising the right to manage. While I appreciate the good intentions behind the amendment, the practical effect would be to make the right to manage inaccessible to the vast majority of leaseholders. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said in Committee, it will create an incentive for the landlord to make the service charges as high as possible. Indeed, if he can make sure that the leaseholders struggle to pay them once, he can be sure that it will be impossible for them to accumulate enough to pay them effectively for a second and third time. We cannot agree to the opening up of such a glaring opportunity for landlords to undermine the right to manage.
That said, I can well appreciate concerns that the leaseholders who take over the management of a property should have the necessary funds behind them to be able to do the job properly. We agree and strongly encourage them to do so. But, as has been said previously, that is a matter for guidance and not for the face of the Bill. Leaseholders already have to pay for the management of the property and will therefore exercise the right to manage, knowing that they will have to meet the costs that they run up themselves. The additional requirement is unnecessary and would be a very heavy burden.
The objection remains the same whether the sums have to be paid up front as share capital or guaranteed in cases of future liability, which is the twist that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has brought to the debate this evening. The suggested requirement to pay two years' service charge is too high. It is a loophole for landlords to push up charges, to try to frustrate the right to manage and generally to price leaseholders out of exercising the right to manage. Whether they do it
546
by having to give a guarantee to that effect, or whether they have to put it up front in the form of share capital, the barrier is the same.
The noble Lord also proposed that either the freeholder, under Amendment No. 98, or the landlords together, under Amendment No. 95, should have the right to appoint a minimum number of directors of the RTM company. We do not see why that is necessary and certainly do not think it appropriate. As has been said many times, the right to manage will give everyone with a significant stake in a property a balanced and proportionate say in its management. I cannot see why we should unbalance that by giving landlords the right to insist on their own directors.
Those proposals seem to be based on the unhelpful assumption that leaseholders cannot be trusted to manage the property in which they have acquired the majority stake and that landlords need some special protection. We disagree. There is nothing to justify the landlord, with his minority stake in the property, having a disproportionate degree of protection. We agree, of course, that everyone with a stake in the property should be able to take action to promote their interest when the RTM company fails to do its job. The Bill already provides for that, but our view remains that such rights should be granted on a fair and equitable basis.
We have no objection in principle to the appointment of a director nominated by the landlord. Indeed, we would see nothing wrong in the landlord himself becoming a director. But we feel that that should be a matter for the members to decide for themselves collectively.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, addresses how the Government should set about prescribing the constitution of the RTM company. Your Lordships have already seen an outline draft of the RTM constitution. If the noble Lord, or any other Peer, has concerns about that draft, he is more than welcome to let me know what those are. There will be further drafts—we hope to make a further version available before too long. In addition, there will be full public consultation before the text is finally decided.
In view of the openness on our part, I am disappointed by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, his suspicions of our intentions and his wish that we make regulations subject to affirmative resolution. He is shaking his head to indicate that my fears are completely misplaced, for which I am grateful. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for his full response to my amendment, but I am rather disappointed at what he said—by his tone rather than the content. He seemed to be extremely hurt by the fact that I tabled an amendment on the topic at all. I apologise, but what matters is finding a solution to the problem. RTM companies need adequate resources to ensure that the fabric of the building that they manage is properly maintained. In

547
my submission, the provision in the Bill for the protection of RTM companies and the fabric of the buildings is inadequate.
The noble and learned Lord's response is, "Ah, wait until you see the regulations". Perhaps I have misunderstood and that they are matters that should be covered by regulations and guidance. Is it not reasonable to assume that when these documents become a reality and I glance at them, I shall see the solution to my problem? Is that a reasonable supposition? The noble and learned Lord shakes his head.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall not respond. I have indicated that making sure that there are sufficient funds is a matter for guidance, not for imposing hurdles of a statutory kind which we believe will debar in practice many leaseholders from exercising the right to manage. What we intend to do in guidance is indicate the kinds of step that the appropriate and prudent leaseholder should take in ensuring that the RTM is sufficiently funded. But it will be guidance; it will not be the kind of statutory requirement that the noble Lord envisages by way of a hurdle before one can set up an RTM, as these amendments propose.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Of course I shall return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that further consideration in Committee be resumed not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Employment of the Disabled
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to encourage people with disabilities to consider working in the hospitality and tourism industry.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank in advance those noble Lords who are speaking tonight for their participation in the debate. I very much look forward to learning from their speeches. As ever I remind your Lordships of my interests in these matters, all of which are unpaid. I am patron of the Tourism for All Consortium and of the Restaurant Association of Great Britain. I have been a member of the funding council of the Disability Partnership.
It is obvious to all that there is a crisis in tourism at present due to the cumulative effects of foot and mouth disease since March and the terrorist attacks last month in the United States. The English Tourism
548
Council has estimated that at least 150,000 jobs are at risk. Therefore, it might seem a strange time for me to ask for this short debate to discuss the need to encourage people with disabilities to look to the tourism and hospitality industry as their career of first choice. However, I still think that it is the right time for this debate. Hospitality and tourism is a vital industry to the UK economy. It employs more than 1.75 million people, accounting for one in six of all new jobs created over the past 10 years.
Those who run hospitality businesses still need to plan for the better years which must lie ahead. Schoolchildren and students always need to plan ahead and so, of course, do the Government. It is vital that the Government have a clear strategy. I invite the Minister tonight to give the House an insight into that strategy.
This is a special week for planning ahead; it is Springboard Careers Festival Week. Springboard is an independent not for profit organisation set up to promote and encourage career opportunities in hospitality and tourism. As the Springboard website declares, this week,
"provides a powerful opportunity to address the biggest industry issue—attracting enough of the right people into jobs and careers across hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism".
My argument tonight is quite simply that people with disabilities can be the right people and that it is important to bring that point home to potential employees, employers, teachers and customers such as we all are.
Today is Bus Tours of Discovery Day when potential recruits, careers advisers and teachers get on a bus to make a voyage of discovery around the tourism industry learning what goes on behind the scenes. Let us hope that they still want to enter the industry after that.
It is important to attract people wit h disabilities to employment in tourism for three reasons. First, it is quite simply and self-evidently the right thing to do. Secondly, it has the statutory backing of the Disability Discrimination Act passed by the previous Conservative government in 1995. That makes it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people in terms of employment and disability. Its provisions will be fully implemented by 1st October 2004. Organisations such as the Restaurant Association have taken care to publish guidance notes for their members outlining their obligations with regard to the Disability Discrimination Act and highlighting practical points which are, of course, in essence good practice.
The Act may be the stick but the carrot is quite simple; it makes good business sense to employ people with disabilities in the tourism industry. The industry has a notoriously high turnover of staff. It often seems that no sooner are people trained than they are off. The vast range of employment and career opportunities in large and small businesses, the rapidly changing development of technology in the workplace, the coverage of the industry across the United Kingdom and the flexibility of much of the work all offer a

549
unique opportunity to promote careers in tourism to a comparatively new market, that of disabled people, and in turn help to deal with the chronic skills shortages in the UK.
It has been shown that by employing people with disabilities one can gain a competitive edge in providing services for disabled customers and give staff the confidence to serve disabled customers to a high standard. It is surely likely that a greater percentage of people with disabilities would want to travel on holiday or business if more services and facilities were made accessible and they were made welcome with those facilities.
Disabled people tend to remain employed with the same business for longer and they have a strong commitment to the job with good punctuality records and low absenteeism rates. It has also been shown that by employing disabled people we can improve an employee's view of the company and increase general staff retention.
I believe the direct questions which should be tackled tonight are: what progress has been made by both the Government and the industry and what are the plans for the future? First, I turn to the Government. Employers who want to employ staff with disabilities who have the skills they need face one insuperable problem in finding them. How do they get hold of them from the databank of unemployed people who are registered as disabled? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the information collected at jobcentres spells out what disabled people can do in the hospitality and tourism sector? Will they ensure that the information is kept in such a way that it can be accessed locally, regionally and nationally?
The Government's strategy, Tomorrow's Tourism, published in early 1999 stated that they were committed to improving access to employment in tourism. They said they would take three steps. First, they would encourage trade associations to work with disability groups to develop training and information programmes which raise awareness of the potential of those groups, identify their specific needs as employees and seek to overcome prejudice. Secondly, they would encourage tourism employers to adopt equal opportunities policies and practices to recruit from the widest possible range of employees, including disabled people. Thirdly, they would encourage larger companies in particular to provide transport for employees when they are located in areas which are inaccessible to public transport. Can the Minister give examples of progress the Government have made so far, their plans for the future and within what timescale?
The industry itself has already taken some positive action to ensure that the skills of disabled people are used for the benefit of the tourism and hospitality industry. However, it recognises that it has a long way to go yet. I commend two examples of good practice tonight. The Disability Partnership brought together a group of senior hoteliers and industry specialists to form what they called an hoteliers' forum. They have worked through the IndividuALL project to show
550
their commitment to disability equality, accessible premises and fair employment practices. The practical side of all this is simple. They have developed a distance learning package for hoteliers. It provides the necessary information to help staff learn about the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act. It enables hoteliers to capitalise on the business opportunities presented by disabled customers and ensure that staff possess sufficient knowledge to feel confident when serving disabled guests. The good news is that in November that project will be opened up to the whole hospitality sector, providing a one-stop shop on disability needs for the industry, using a business solution approach.
I also draw your Lordships' attention to Access 21—a three-year project funded by the English Tourism Council at the encouragement of the Government to improve the provision of visitors' facilities for disabled people. The lead regional tourist board is the Heart of England, which will focus on employment and training issues for the next year and a half to two years.
What is the Government's view of those initiatives and the progress that they have made so far? What assistance or encouragement do the Government believe that they can usefully provide?
To conclude on a personal note, I believe that it is important to unlock the potential of people with disabilities and bring their skills to the tourism industry, because we would all benefit from them.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for promoting tourism jobs for all in this debate. I wish her and her colleagues well for the Springboard festival this week, promoting awareness of the problems and opportunities for increasing the number of disabled people in the tourism and hospitality industries.
I asked friends in Chester at the weekend to furnish me with examples of disabled employees in such industries. They told me of the disabled cleaners and helpers working successfully at a holiday caravan park in nearby North Wales. A second example was a trout farm at Bodelwyddan, where the employers had gone out of their way to adapt for and adopt disabled workers. They had been repaid a thousandfold in the loyalty, zeal and commitment shown by their disabled recruits. In addition, I was told of the joy on the faces of the recruits' parents as a result of their disabled sons and daughters being in productive employment. That in turn melted the hard-headed souls running the business. It is truly a win-win situation all round because someone had bothered to take a chance.
Another example of good practice was told to me by a theatre chief executive, who pointed to Jackson's Lane theatre in Highgate, which has had its electrics deliberately and conveniently positioned in a fashion that leaves them accessible to repair by wheelchair-bound electricians. Theatres are an important component of the tourism industry, but not all of them have seen the light. Too often too little has been done

551
behind the scenes to make the environment friendly for the wheelchair-bound, many of whom want to work, whether as actors or electricians, in the stimulating and rewarding industry of tourism and hospitality, where personal skills are held at such a premium.
The moral of the story is that the needs of Britain's 320,000 wheelchair-bound should be scheduled into any new buildings to ensure that they are wheelchair-compatible. We are hoping to do that in Chester when the Gateway theatre moves into a new building to become the Performing Arts Centre.
I shall highlight the three Es on which we need action and on which the Government can help—educators, employers and employees. Accessing Merseyside is an organisation that promotes distance learning packages for targeted disabled workers in tourism. In addition, it brings local college staff together with local disability groups, the better to understand each other and hence dispel the prejudices that sometimes divide those potential partners. I also ask the Minister to look at the excellent work being done by the Cheshire tourism for all forum, especially in respect of its Cheshire tourism skills initiative.
I ask the Minister to rescue the ETC's promising partnership with the Hoteliers' Forum, already alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Its ambition to open the minds of employers to see disabled workers as providing added value for their industry is currently thwarted from being brought to fruition by a lack of resources.
Separately, colleagues from the North-West Tourist Board tell me that employers have been slow to respond to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Many employers seem to be unaware that 50 per cent of adaptations to help accommodate a disabled worker cost less than £50 a throw. Far too many employers still lack the imagination to grasp that adapting the working environment for the disabled is usually of benefit for all. After all, we are all to a greater or lesser degree able bodied or disabled. It does not require a Darwin to appreciate that environmental change for one may be beneficial for all.
Disabled people must be encouraged—and must encourage themselves—to believe that they can do jobs in hospitality and tourism. I was struck by the absence of any article or report in this month's edition of the excellent Disability Times on disabled workers in general or those in the tourism and hospitality industries in particular. There must be good news stories aplenty of the courage of disabled workers facing new work challenges that could inspire the disabled community as a whole. Perhaps a reciprocal column could appear in that equally excellent publication, GBI Travel, which might depict the contribution of disabled workers to the wellbeing of those important industries.
My own disability for keeping to my allotted time prevents me from saying more. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for raising this hugely important issue.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on securing a debate on this important subject—important for disabled people and for the hospitality and tourism industry. She made a very good and thoughtful speech. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond to the many legitimate questions that were put to her.
The relationship between disabled people and those industries is very important. It is a twofold relationship—disabled people can be customers or employees. The Disability Discrimination Act will affect both relationships. Because the industry will have to cater for disabled customers, it could have a special potential for employing a disabled worker. For example, a ramp required for a customer could also be available to a worker. There is a duality all the time, each aspect intermingling with the other.
These industries play an important role in Britain. They are growth industries that are expected to provide 300,000 more jobs by 2009. In the short term, their prosperity will obviously be affected, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, by the tragedy in the United States as well as by foot and mouth. It follows that the opportunities for disabled people will be more restricted than they might have been, but we hope that international tension will ease, foot and mouth will become history and the industries will go back to normal.
It is essential that the industries step up their efforts to create facilities for the employment of disabled people. Some 90 per cent of the 290,000 establishments have 10 or fewer workers. But the 15-employee threshold of the DDA will be removed at the latest by, and hopefully much earlier than, 2004. The industries will need to be able to meet then- legal obligations, so they had better get on with it.
I hope that all employers will be aware of the importance of good staff training in disability awareness. Despite the advances in understanding which are propelled by the DDA and the Disability Rights Commission, there still lingers a sense that employing disabled people is a problem. However, that is far from the case. Many employers have spoken of the skills, ability and application of disabled workers. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to that very important point. Often, only very small adjustments are required and, in return, the employer gets a dedicated, conscientious worker.
I know that industries want to develop training in general but funding is scarce, as we all know only too well. That hits disabled people very hard. Invariably they are at the end of the queue, in part perhaps because their education tends to have been less effective than they would have hoped due to their disability. They need some special consideration if they are to have near equal opportunities.

553
I believe that more attention should be paid to the fact that disabled people want not only jobs but a choice of jobs. That is absolutely crucial. If disabled people are required to do only menial tasks, that will maintain the old-style segregation and deprive them of full participation, which society now wishes to see. Image matters. Disabled people need to see those industries as providing opportunities and not as being a last resort ghetto.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Harrison speak as he did. He made a good speech. He referred to the wheelchair-bound, by which he meant people who use wheelchairs. We all want to help wheelchair users and I have spent 30 years trying to do just that. But I do not believe that we should be obsessed with them because only a small minority of disabled people are wheelchair users. I believe that they number some 5 per cent, but I do not have the figures in front of me.
There is a vast range of disabilities. These industries, as well as others, must take account of mentally handicapped people and those with cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness. A vast range of people—not only wheelchair users—have disabilities. I believe that these industries need to be seen as good employers for all disabled people and as a source of an interesting and secure career.
However—this is a very important point—I understand that no one body is responsible for disseminating relevant information and informing potentially interested disabled people. That is ridiculous. Why cannot one body or organisation be responsible for ensuring that industries are willing to take on disabled workers? Why cannot we inform them in an organised way rather than have the ridiculous situation whereby no one is responsible?
The increasingly close co-operation between these industries and the disability organisations is welcome and important. I congratulate the industries on their initiatives. They form an essential part of breaking down the barriers. In particular, the Tourism for All Consortium's one-day Springboard Conference will focus on the opportunities for people with disabilities who wish to work in the hospitality and tourism industry. It is an important event, deserving support and great success.
I conclude by saying that disability organisations are working vigorously in this area. Other bodies are responding, but, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and her friends in these industries, we have yet to be sure that their commitment is genuine and that they are not merely paying lip service. I hope that they will all be able to display to Members of this House, to disabled people and to the public that they mean what they say about attracting disabled people and providing proper opportunities for them.
The Government's initiatives—the New Deal for Disabled People and the Access to Work programme—are most welcome. I hope that the Government will do what they can to facilitate such activities. They will benefit not only the industries but disabled people as well.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome this short debate. We should not forget that disabled people have worked in the hospitality and tourism industries for a very long time—certainly since the founding of the Corps of Commissionaires shortly after the First World War specifically to provide employment for those disabled in the service of their country. However, over recent years the number of disabled employees in the industry appears to have reduced. But I suspect that, with increasing enlightenment among employers, that number may rise again.
The Disability Discrimination Act requires employers to make reasonable adjustment to help disabled employees. However, so far there has been little in the way of case law on this matter. I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied that employers are receiving satisfactory guidance on this matter.
The DDA does not apply to employers with fewer than 15 staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has already said, that excludes a very large number of organisations in this industry. He mentioned a figure of 90 per cent. My figure is 87 per cent, but the numbers are so large that something needs to be done about it. I hope that the small employers threshold will soon be reduced from 15 to two. I may be mistaken but, if I remember correctly, when the Disability Discrimination Act went through this House under a previous administration, I believe that the noble Baroness was greatly in favour of the number being a good deal lower than 15. I do not remember whether the figure mentioned was as low as two, but I hope that she can give an indication of when we shall reach that more reasonable figure. A reduction in the number will, of course, increase openings for employees with disabilities.
What are the Government doing to promote employment initiatives in the tourism and hospitality industry for disabled people through the Access to Work programme and the New Deal for Disabled People?
Turning to another matter, public transport is slowly being made accessible, but that needs to be speeded up. At the same time, public transport in rural areas needs to be both increased in volume and improved in quality. I suspect that in rural areas it will be a long time before accessible buses are available. Those areas normally use second-hand buses because their routes are less profitable. However, very often they are areas that rely heavily on tourism, particularly following the problems caused by both BSE and foot and mouth disease.
The New Deal for Disabled People helps disabled people who have been unemployed for some time to return to work. The scheme provides personal advisers with some additional awareness training. But what is being done to improve their general training? In particular, are they being properly trained in areas such as the effects of illness and impairment, benefit advice to disabled people and working with disabled people of different ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds?

555
There are 3.3 million deaf or hard-of-hearing people of working age. As I have experienced myself, having worn a hearing aid for well over 25 years, very many of the training opportunities, and therefore opportunities for eventual promotion, are closed to people with a hearing loss. Provision is simply not made for them on courses or demonstrations or at seminars.
What are the Government doing to improve that? Of those surveyed by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, some 61 per cent—many more than half—reported that they were unable to communicate with staff at jobcentres or in the Careers Service. That is a disgrace. What are the Government doing to improve the situation?
As my noble friend Lady Anelay has already mentioned, there is a large market among disabled people for the industry to tap. Making it easier for disabled people to work in the hospitality and tourism industry will show that industry how to cater for its disabled customers. There are, I understand, some 8.6 million disabled people in the UK and many more visit from overseas. It must make sense to tap into that valuable market.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for introducing this important debate, which has particular resonance for me at the moment.
In the time that is available I want to concentrate on just one issue; that is, the importance of involving disabled people at the centre with regard to advising the hospitality and tourism industry about how to fulfil its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act. That involves the personal inspection of venues, not simply paper guidance, however excellent that may be. If the Government could do all in their power to persuade the industry properly to consult with users in advance it would save an enormous amount of money—and good will—in the long run and it would create an accessible environment that would truly meet our needs.
As disabled people know to our cost, through uncomfortable, spoiled or even cancelled holidays, making access provision that meets the needs of the wide range of impairment—that includes people who are blind or deaf, wheelchair users and those with walking or learning difficulties—is a subtle and complicated business. Unless users are involved at the centre of such a decision-making process, it can go badly wrong.
I have been prompted to concentrate on this issue by an excellent initiative that was undertaken by Centrica during the launch of the AA's "Accessible Hotel of the Year" award. I declare an interest, having been involved as the "mystery shopper" over the past few weeks to help decide the final winner. The first award will be presented this November. It is planned as an ongoing initiative to encourage the 8,000 hotel and bed-and-breakfast proprietors who use the AA's ratings system to hasten their compliance with Part III of the DDA.
556
I applaud that initiative because, like every other wheelchair user, I have learnt to have extreme scepticism about any hotel's claim to be accessible. My most recent holiday abroad—to Seville—was nearly ruined by the assurance of a well-known holiday chain that the hotel was accessible and that its representative had checked it in person. We arrived at 8 p.m. to find that the accessible room indeed had a large bathroom but that the loo was discreetly tucked away deep behind a solid and impenetrable concrete wall. The grim prospect was to spend the night at the airport (where there was a loo) and to get the next flight home. Finally, discovering that there was no other accessible room in the city, the hotel manager realised that the situation was serious and drove 20 miles to borrow a friend's portable camping loo. That was all right but it hardly represented a restful, luxurious holiday—especially for my companion!
There are exceptions. For instance, the Travelodge chain has earned the trust of wheelchair users with regard to its accessible provision. Otherwise, it is only word of mouth and the tried and tested experience of other disabled people that allows one to go on holiday with any confidence that one will have a pleasant experience.
That has led to a mini-industry among disabled people, who convert and let out self-catering accommodation that meets our needs. However, Accessible UK is a much more ambitious commercial venture, which is just being launched and which could potentially provide employment for many disabled people. Its founders, Richard Thompson and Paul Derbyshire, are both spinally injured. During the past five years their two travel companies—TravelAbility and the Accessible Travel and Leisure Company—have offered a wider range of accessible holidays than any other company in the UK. Their policy is to verify personally every venue. With their new project, Accessible UK, they are developing a network of websites covering all of the United Kingdom, county by county, which will provide an expanding encyclopaedia of information on verified accessible facilities and services. The project will give employment to well over 100 disabled people as self-employed licensees who take responsibility for each county or large conurbation. The licensees will verify the establishments within their territory, sell advertising space on the website and provide photographs promoting the accessibility. The project has huge potential. Would the Minister consider encouraging national tourist boards to ensure that each county website contained links to Accessible UK?
Apart from through such ventures, where will the travel and hospitality industry find disabled users with the knowledge and experience to advise it? Moreover, training is essential to give proper advice. Although disabled people are the experts on their own needs, few of us properly understand the needs of people with other impairments unless we have been well trained.
A framework of access groups exists throughout the country but it is fragmented and very poorly resourced. The Government could do much to improve the current situation in that area. According

557
to Peter Lainson, chair of RADAR's access advisory committee, there are now about 200 access groups in England. Some of them run on pure enthusiasm—they have no funding at all—and it is rare for a group to receive more than £200 a year. As he said, "If you get involved in this, you have to see it as a hobby that will swallow money". Over the past two or three years many groups have found it difficult to maintain their enthusiasm.
The new Built Environment Working Group, which, following a recommendation from the Disability Rights Task Force, was set up by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee at the Government's request, recognises the potential of access groups as an underdeveloped resource. Its chair, Peter Barker, says that the issue of funding must be addressed. It is to that end that I ask the Minister whether she would consider: first, giving sufficient funding to the national network so that it can provide good support to those 200 struggling groups; and, secondly, setting up a project to examine the costs and benefits of providing proper funding to access groups. That would provide potential employment opportunities for disabled people and the framework for ensuring that the vast amount of work that needs to be done to make the hospitality and tourism industries accessible to disabled people is done to good effect and ensure that it truly fulfils the spirit and not just the letter of the Disability Discrimination Act. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one of those debates that it is rather difficult to sum up. One might be restricted to saying that one agrees with proposals X, Y and Z, which were said previously. I could go through the entire debate doing that.
We have come to one conclusion; that is, that in this context there is a real problem and real opportunities. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, put her finger on something very important when she said that although things may be going badly in the industry at the moment the way in which our economy is switched and geared means that the service and hospitality industry is an important and growing sector.
There is a danger when we make speeches that we think that the present is permanent. We all make that mistake from time to time but governments tend to make it more often than most. We assume that everything will carry on as it currently does. This sector of the economy is bound to grow.
Virtually every noble Lord who has spoken referred to the fact that it will probably be easier to deal with those people who are one's potential marketplace—I refer to those with disabilities—if one employs those who are disabled. An excellent briefing that I received from the English Tourism Council pointed that out and said that the disabled are not an homogenous group.
558
A number of different types of disability have been mentioned. That suggests that we must look everywhere. The problems of a wheelchair user are not the same as those of a person with hearing loss or sight deficiency. We must remember that some people use wheelchairs because they become tired and their legs are weak; others are totally dependent upon wheelchairs. The same principle is true of other types of disability. We have a difficult exercise to perform in lateral and cross-thinking.
The Government's role is thus doubly difficult. I have every sympathy with them, but I shall keep pushing for them to take action. I am trying to think of debates in this Chamber in which aspects of disability have not been mentioned. Apart from Treasury debates, I cannot think of one. However, I believe that that has more to do with constitutional arrangements. Every aspect of government policy contains a disability issue. That has become clearer over time. We may sort out the "great dragons" and have our great achievements, but it is only when we look at the fine detail that matters become apparent.
I shall try to drag myself away from the wider sphere back to the matter before us. We must encourage the industry to take on board and employ disabled people. If not, we shall take away the most natural way into the workforce for many such people. For better or worse, there is a degree of low status attached to comparatively easy-access jobs. That may be due to our cultural attitude towards service jobs. Indeed, English waiters have ruined more meals for me than I care to mention.
However, it is the case that we do not take these issues properly on board. All noble Lords who have been to party conferences will be familiar with the small, quaintly-organised hotels in which we have stayed. Such hotels often have umpteen stairs and incredibly small rooms. That leads us to believe that the tourism and hospitality industry has major problems at the smaller end of the scale. That must be addressed. The Government must give information to businesses on how to deal with such problems. We always knew that the structure and nature of the Government approach, taken way back in connection with DDA and case law, would be difficult. This will all take time.
The long run-in period has led to complacency in certain areas. However, I shall defer my remarks until next year. I would bet that there are people who will say, "Our budgets are tight. We shall put off making decisions about finance". The Government have to be seen to move forward.
I shall ask the noble Baroness what the Government will do. The noble Baroness will then be perfectly justified in listing a series of initiatives, often from her department or perhaps from other departments. I should like the noble Baroness to give me an idea of the Government's overall philosophy on this issue, because that is ultimately more important. Initiatives come and go; some work and some do not. All are stepping stones towards something else. If the noble Baroness is able to give us an idea of the overall

559
philosophy, we shall have taken another step forward. That is not an easy task. I hope that the noble Baroness will not curse me too harshly as I sit down. Unless we get right the philosophy, the issues surrounding disability will not be properly addressed. We have to get our lateral vision working strongly on this matter.
8.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, perhaps I may open by taking issue with a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in the last part of his speech. He said that what he really wanted from us was a philosophy. Listening to the speeches tonight, I do not believe that there is a philosophical divide between any of us. We all seem to share a common concern to ensure that disabled people are recognised as a fruitful area of customers and clients for the tourism and hospitality industry as well as being valued employees of that industry. Far from me talking about philosophy, which we have done in many general debates on disability issues, it seems to me to be important to talk about the practical steps and aspects of funding which have been raised tonight. Some of the questions raised, which are new to me, will be followed up in correspondence.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord, Addington, that we must continue to help to challenge the stereotypical thinking about disabled people. As my noble friend Lord Ashley stated, we should not assume that they are marked by white sticks and wheelchairs. Learning disability, mental health disability, depression and some orthopaedic and angina problems are not easily visible or recognised. Very often in helping one group we may add to the problems faced by another. We may, for example, seek to lower cambers on roads for wheelchair users, thus making it difficult for people using white sticks always to be able to manage the inclines. The problems are not always straightforward, as was recognised by my noble friend Lord Ashley.
My noble friend Lady Wilkins made the point that we shall be successful only if we act in partnership with interested groups ranging from the Disability Rights Commission to disabled people, their representative organisations and the business sector. Employers have to consider making changes to working practices or premises which place disabled people at a substantial disadvantage. As your Lordships have said, and as we know, though it bears repeating, that can be something as simple as being flexible about working hours or holding a meeting in an accessible room. Many disabled people need no adjustments to be made at work. Many adjustments, when necessary, are made at little or no extra cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pressed me on the reduction of the small employers' threshold. He is right; we did fight shoulder to shoulder on this issue in your Lordships' House. I am delighted to reinforce the comments of my noble friend Lord Ashley. The small business exemption is due to end in October 2004. It will not be reduced to two people but will simply be
560
abolished. As a result, 7 million additional jobs and around 600,000 disabled employees will come within its scope. As your Lordships recognise, the hospitality and tourism industry is very much one of small companies and small firms.
I turn to what we are doing to help disabled people to enter the tourism and hospitality industry so that they come equipped with real skills. There are around 600 specialist disability employment advisers based in jobcentres who should understand the needs of disabled people. They know their local labour markets and are able to work with employers to find appropriate jobs.
My noble friend Lord Harrison produced fascinating examples, with which I was much taken. Perhaps I may also give an example. In Cumbria, disability employment advisers arranged for a man with a visual impairment to attend a tourism job fair, at which he met a local employer with vacancies. The adviser was able to follow up the initial contact and arrange a package of support for that individual. At the beginning of October this year, that person started work as a hotel administrator.
Some disabled people with more complex needs may not be immediately ready for independent work and will require sustained support. That is why for many years we have had a programme of supported employment. That programme has been modernised and became Workstep from April this year. Workstep is a £161 million programme to which in June was added a further £37 million over three years to pay for an additional 2,000 places.
Equally, I am sure noble Lords will be familiar with the name Remploy, which is the largest employer of disabled people in the UK and the largest single provider within the Workstep programme. Remploy operates as a commercial company and receives an annual grant of £94 million from Government to provide jobs and training for disabled people. Remploy trains and employs between 80 and 100 people in the Manchester area in its managed services division working at some of the top hotel chains; namely, Quality Hotels, Marriott, Renaissance, Copthorne and Titsa, mainly in behind-the-scenes jobs as cleaners and chambermaids, and so forth. It is worth adding that Remploy, I am pleased to say, pays well above the minimum wage.
The Government also fund residential training provision for disabled adults. A number of places are specifically aimed at training for the tourism and leisure industry. Not all the places on offer are currently filled. Therefore, there is a real opportunity for unemployed disabled to move into training and work. If those places remain unfilled, either through a lack of adequate publicity or possibly inappropriate training packages, I should be very grateful to hear from your Lordships who may have first-hand experience of it, so that we can tailor them more effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked what provision is made in jobcentres for hard of hearing potential employees. It is again worth emphasising

561
that disability employment advisers can arrange for British sign language interpreters or communicators to attend adviser appointments with hard of hearing clients; and it would help to know in advance whether that service would need to be used.
I was asked whether employers were receiving good advice on reasonable adjustment. There is a code of practice in existence, and many information leaflets are available. The DRC has a helpline that provides advice to employers and others, and Bert Massey emphasised how well it is used by employers. Employers increasingly understand that adjustments are not expensive and are a matter of common sense. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said, if adjustments draw on the skills of disabled people for access to physical space, for example, they in turn make adjustments that are used not only by disabled people but by parents with small children in tow and in buggies, older people struggling with shopping bags, and the like.
Twenty years ago I was involved in drawing up brochures for my city of Norwich, which has a wealth of heritage buildings, to create access to 18th century nonconformist octagon chapels and 19th century listed bank buildings in ways that provided enhanced access to, but did not distract from, the importance and quality of those buildings. A large swathe of the city's people was then able to enjoy those buildings.
It is clear that, with the right sort of support and encouragement, disabled people can work as effectively as non-disabled people in the tourism industry. We look to employers to recognise that if someone has a physical, mental or sensory impairment, it does not prevent them from making a real contribution to work. The tourism industry, which is a major employer—there are 1.8 million people working in hotels, restaurants, caravan parks, tourist attractions, resort towns and heritage sites, and at arts events and festivals—has regularly suffered severe skill shortages. That, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, is partly due to its reputation for low skills and low pay.
The tourist industry, as it goes upmarket, will need to invest in people with the skills that it requires. That investment combined with the flexible hours that the tourism and hospitality industry can offer may well make such jobs particularly attractive to disabled people, who in turn repay in spades in terms of loyalty and commitment. These can be high quality jobs in terms of the skills required—management and supervisory posts, or telephony—as well as more modest jobs ranging from catering to ground maintenance, which can be valuable for people who have been away from work for a long time and who, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, may have had an interrupted educational background on their way to adulthood.
I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said about widening access to tourism, which was the theme of an earlier debate tabled by the noble
562
Baroness, Lady Anelay, in February 1999, in which many of your Lordships participated, in talking about Tomorrow's Tourism and access for all.
My noble friend Lady Wilkins asked whether Ministers would encourage regional tourist boards to make links to accessible UK websites. The ETC has an excellent accessible website, and we will consider adding to that website if it proves to meet the required standard for accessible accommodation. I shall take away and follow up the noble Baroness's other point about access groups.
Increasing access is an important aspect of the English Tourism Council, recognising that disabled people who are customers as well as employees are a valuable resource. The council has reviewed, in partnership with IndividuALL, which is the renamed Hoteliers Forum, the ways in which people with disabilities can obtain work and how to improve their findings and how to make the industry more accessible to disabled people. The noble Baroness also mentioned that the Heart of England Tourist Board has been running the Access 21 three-year project with five local pilots, leading to a national guidance document at the end of the project term.
More needs to be done. That is why we are establishing Jobcentre Plus and why we are helping disabled people to return to work through the New Deal for Disabled People, as well as providing all the support services of the new deal and the disabled persons' working tax credit. All that can only be of benefit to the tourism industry, disabled people and the country as a whole. Disabled people not only have rights but also a huge practical gain to offer us all both as employees and as users of the tourism industry.
I am confident that in 2003, the European year of disabled people, we shall have a story to celebrate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for introducing this debate today.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.37 to 8.40 p.m.]

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 71.
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 72 [RTM companies: membership and regulations]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 34, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove paragraph (b) from Clause 72(1) of the Bill. That provision defines the membership of an RTM company which consists under paragraph (a) of,
"qualifying tenants of flats",
and under paragraph (b) of,
"landlords under leases of the whole or any part of the premises".
The purpose of the amendment, which runs contrary to those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, prior to the adjournment, is to remove landlords from membership of RTM companies except in cases where they are lessees of flats as well as freeholders. In that case they are entitled to remain in their capacity as lessees.
We strongly believe that it is inappropriate for a landlord to be a member of an RTM company. In many cases the RTM company will have been formed because of dissatisfaction with the landlord. Under the existing legislation where tenants are entitled to take over management on the proof of the improper behaviour or defects of the landlord, the landlord does not participate in the management. However, that is because the landlord has clearly been behaving improperly in the conduct of the management.
In the case of an RTM company, it is possible that the landlord has not been behaving improperly because proof of any such misconduct is in no way necessary for the formation of an RTM company. None the less, it is likely that in a high proportion of cases the RTM company will have been formed because of a degree of dissatisfaction with the way in which the landlord has managed the property.
If the landlord has managed it well and at a fair cost, the chances are that the tenants will be happy to spare themselves the burden of management and will allow the landlord to continue. If the landlord has caused dissatisfaction, there almost certainly would be a desire to use the new route of forming an RTM company rather than using the existing legislation in order to avoid the need to have to prove misconduct on the part of the landlord.
In many cases, because the whole desire to move to an RTM company has been instigated by the landlord's misconduct, it would seem to be wholly inappropriate for a landlord to be a member of the RTM company. Furthermore, in cases where the landlord has not misconducted himself in the management, his interests and those of the leaseholders are likely to be at arm's length. We believe that in that case it is inappropriate for the landlord not only to be representing his own position but also to have a position in the management company.
We believe that there should be an arm's-length relationship between the RTM company and the landlord. Of course the landlord would be, and under the legislation is, entitled to require the RTM company to carry out its obligations to him as well as to the leaseholders. We do not therefore see that there is any unnecessary suffering on the part of the landlord by his being excluded from the RTM company. We believe that allowing the landlord as of right to be a member
564
of the RTM company is a recipe for confusion and for mixed signals. We believe that if the landlord is always there making his points in company meetings as well as in arm's-length negotiations with the company as manager of the properly, the RTM company will be more difficult to run adequately.
We believe that if the RTM system is to work, it is a matter of considerable importance that the landlord should not be a member of it and should deal with it at arm's length in the protection of his own interest as landlord. Furthermore, we do not envisage any likelihood of any such rule being held inconsistent with Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Amendments Nos. 97 and 100 are part of this group. Earlier I spoke in substance to Amendment No. 97 and shall therefore address my remarks to Amendment No. 100. The whole rhetoric of the Bill is to give individuals who live in their blocks of flats a right to manage them. The amendment gives effect to that principle. There is no reason to give the right to manage to individuals who have bought flats for investment purposes only.
The objection made to the amendment in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was that "resident" is extremely difficult to define. The noble Lord did not suggest that my proposition about limiting the rights to residents was wrong in principle. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, similar tests apply to vast swathes of housing law. It is, for example, a test as to whether a dwelling house is subject to a Rent Act controlled tenancy or to an assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, went on to suggest that landlords might start detailed investigations into tenants' private lives in order to discover whether or not they were resident. I suggest that that approach tilts at windmills. Normally, it is very easy to say whether or not someone is living in a property. The idea of a landlord setting up 24-hour surveillance of a flat to establish how often the particular tenant occupies it is, frankly, absurd. Therefore, I believe that the issue is not the practicality of the residence test—because such difficulties as there may be can be met—but whether the principle is correct. I draw comfort from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
However, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, having tabled amendments similar to this one, resiled from that position—I say that in the nicest possible way—and gave a very compelling explanation of why in Grand Committee. Having tabled this amendment, I nevertheless understand the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I wonder whether tonight the noble Lord is inclined to go in to bat again or is content to leave it to the noble and learned Lord to bat on his behalf.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am only sorry that I did not hear the argument of which I am to be deprived. I deal first with the suggestion of the noble Lord,

565
Lord Goodhart, that the landlord should not have the right to be a member of the RTM company. Our proposed right for landlords to become members of the RTM company was the subject of some dispute when this Bill was previously before the House. Leaseholder representatives have expressed considerable concerns about it, and I appreciate that many of them are genuine. However, correspondence received by my officials on this issue suggests that a good many of those concerns are based on a misunderstanding of what is being done in this Bill. I believe that it is important, therefore, to make our intentions clear.
It is true that, put in simple terms, the right to manage is a right to allow leaseholders of flats to gain management control of their block. What it is not, however, is a right to kick out the landlord. Many Members of the Committee who recall the previous Committee stage of this Bill will remember my noble friend Lord Whitty emphasising on a number of occasions that this was a "no fault" right to manage. That point has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in moving the amendment. That remains a key point which will continue to be stressed on our side throughout the passage of the Bill. Our emphasis on no fault is not intended to be a convenient smokescreen behind which to hide. The landlord will continue to have a legitimate property interest in the building once RTM is acquired. By the same token, the landlord will have an ongoing interest in its management.
Furthermore, because the acquisition of the right is not linked to any process of proving that the landlord has been a bad or negligent manager—hence "no fault"—there is nothing which justifies our ignoring that interest and cutting the landlord entirely out of the management process. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seeks to circumvent that point by saying that frequently bad management will provoke the process by which RTM is instituted. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that is not a sufficient answer. There is a no-fault process here. The landlord retains an interest in the property and, as a member of the RTM company, he is entitled to have that retained property right respected.
I believe that there is much common ground between ourselves and the noble Lord. We disagree over how best to ensure that the landlord's legitimate interests are safeguarded. Our view is that the best way to provide for this is to allow the landlord to be a member of the RTM company. That will put him or her on a similar footing to any one of the qualifying leaseholders, with the same rights to receive information and to suggest the best way forward for the management of the property. I suspect that this may be seen as somewhat heretical, but it would even allow the landlord and leaseholders to work together in managing the block in which they all have a property interest.
At Second Reading—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, labelled it, Fourth Reading—the noble Lord suggested that the RTM company should deal
566
with the landlord at arm's length. The noble Lord has repeated that suggestion tonight. Our view is that that would be a more complicated and, in many ways, less satisfactory way to address the problem. As the Bill stands, it is his membership rights which provide for a proper relationship between the landlord and the RTM company. There is certainly nothing in the Bill as it stands which would properly provide for an arm's length approach. If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, therefore, under the Bill there would not be any structured relationship between the landlord and the RTM company. In effect, he would be excluded from the process. The question of how he became involved in the process would be a matter to be determined ad hoc in the particular case. Our view remains that the Bill is right as it stands.
I move to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As the noble Lord pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, had suggested at Second Reading that it would be wrong to allow a nonresident landlord to be a member of the company. I understand from the noble Lord's closing remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, resiled from that position for reasons very persuasively put but not set out by either noble Lord. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not mind my noting that in Amendment No. 100 he proposes that a leaseholder who is not resident in the property should not enjoy any membership rights. The two noble Lords have taken the same principle, albeit at different times, and each has applied it to one of the groups that the Bill permits to be a member of the company.
I believe it is clear from what has been said that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would not support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in his amendment, and I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would not support the current position of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, although he might have supported the noble Lord's previous position. The noble Lord nods his head.
Our view on this matter is governed by two principles. First, we cannot agree that different eligibility rules should apply to different people. I believe that both noble Lords agree with that. We believe that there should be one governing criterion, namely whether a person has a significant stake in the property in question. The Bill already enshrines that principle. We believe that that is the principle, not residence. Secondly, we are generally of the view that any form of residence test is undesirable. It exists in other housing legislation but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is aware, experience has shown that tests of this nature are open to abuse and confusion. There is contention about what constitutes residence. It is for such reasons that our Bill generally takes the approach of removing or replacing residence tests. That is also the reason why we do not favour the creation of another one here. That is the problem in applying the residence test.
But I make clear that the principle on which membership rests is whether or not the person has a significant stake in the property in question. We remain of the view that that is the correct approach

567
and, therefore, we cannot agree that the approach in Amendments Nos. 96, 100 and 145 is correct. The right to manage is neither pro-landlord nor anti-landlord; rather, it is a measure to ensure that management rights balance property interests. As a holder of a stake in the property, the landlord is a part of that balance.
Perhaps I may deal very briefly with Amendment No. 97 to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred in the debate on the previous group of amendments but did not repeat in relation to this matter. The right granted to landlords to be a member of the RTM is a qualified one. A landlord may become a member of an RTM company only after the date on which that company acquires the right to manage that property, whereas the amendment would allow him to become a member at any time. The qualification that he gets that right only after the company acquires the right to manage is there for a sensible, practical reason. Before it can acquire the right to manage the RTM company is required to serve a claim notice on a range of existing management parties, including all of the landlords. That allows the recipients to satisfy themselves that the leaseholders are properly entitled to the right to manage.
If any of the landlords were to be a member of the company at that stage they would be both the people being notified of a claim and a part of the body which notified them. To our minds, that would not make sense. It would also give unscrupulous landlords a double opportunity to cause problems and delay. Not only would they be able to dispute the entitlement of the RTM company; they would also be able to try to slow down the process from within the company. We do not want to open up that eventuality. For that reason, we cannot allow any of the landlords, including the freeholder, to become members of the RTM company before it acquires the right to manage.
As I have said, our Bill already strikes a sensible balance. It allows the landlords to protect their legitimate interests once the right is acquired but prevents them interfering before that date. We believe that that is the right solution.
In the light of the remarks that I have made, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will withdraw his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not move his.
9 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, my view has always been that the right ought to belong to residents who can be proved to be residents. I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, agreed with me when the matter was discussed in Grand Committee but said that it will not work because defining in the Bill exactly who is a resident is too difficult. I think now that the Government are saying that the real test is not the residence test but—I might almost say a stakeholder test—it is whether or not one has a stake in the property.
568
All my instincts have been against that. However, by far and away the greater number of leaseholders who have lobbied me during the passage of the Bill have taken the Government's view and not mine. So I shall not be tabling the amendment on Report.
Lord Goodhart: When I moved Amendment No. 96 I failed to say that I was speaking also to Amendment No. 145. That raises exactly the same point in relation to RTE companies in the period between their formation and before they actually acquire a conveyance of the property. Therefore, the same arguments are relevant.
I regret to say that I am disappointed. This is one of the three or four most important issues in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that it was important that the various stakeholders in the house, the leaseholders and the freeholders, should work together. There is nothing in my amendment that prevents that.
If the members of the RTM company and the freeholder are on good terms with each other there is no reason why the freeholder should not be invited to attend meetings of the RTM company and express his views. It is where relations are not that good that problems potentially arise. In that case it is important that the RTM company should be reserved to the leaseholders so they can decide their own issues.
Of course the physical presence of the landlord at the meeting may have a disturbing effect on the leaseholders who are there as other members. Therefore, we think that it would be an important protection to leaseholders to be able to say, "No, we do not want the freeholder to be present at our meeting. We think that in our interests it is best that the freeholder should not be there".
I shall withdraw the amendment today, but it is very probably one which we shall bring back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 72, insert the fallowing new clause—
"MANAGING AGENT
(1) A person who wishes to practise as a managing agent and hold the service charge trust fund shall be required to—

(a) be subject to a code of practice,

(b) undergo yearly auditing of accounts,

(c) be covered by professional indemnity and fidelity insurance, and

(d) undergo a minimum quota of annual management training.

(2) Regulations under this section shall make provision about the form and content of the above and make such other rules, requirements and restrictions as may be appropriate to ensure proper standards are maintained and the interests of landlords, RTM companies and leaseholders are safeguarded."
The noble Lord said: My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is aware of the issues, because we went through them all at a previous stage in Grand

569
Committee. I do not propose therefore to spend long on this matter. Nevertheless, it is of intense importance. I wish to stress that. One cannot have people taking over the management of properties who are not properly qualified and registered. In particular, one cannot have anyone who is entitled to hold the service charge trust fund managing properties of that nature.
Therefore, there must be a code of practice. There must be yearly audited accounts of people who want to become managing agents. They should be covered properly by professional indemnity and fidelity insurance and undergo the minimum quota of annual management training. All that must be subject to the regulations which no doubt the Government—if the Government accept the amendment—will produce.
Many of my colleagues and others feel strongly about this matter. We have heard that the Government are not ready to introduce such regulations and that time has to go by. Nevertheless, if RTM is to come into proper—I mean proper—recognition and if it is to be a proper safeguard for leaseholders, I believe that the managing agent has to be properly regulated. I beg to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I rise briefly to add my support to the thrust of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The proposal it puts forward is one of a number of ideas that touch on the reality of life for people living in most blocks of flats. To that end, I should like to take the opportunity to make a wider point as regards RTM and the rather restrictive circumstances under which it can be introduced unless we amend the Bill in some fashion.
I shall illustrate that comment by citing two representative examples. In so doing, I declare an interest as chair of the residents' association for my block of flats in WC1. First, in a mixed commercial and residential block the Bill as presently drafted will not confer on the residents the right to manage. Their main concern will lie exactly in the area identified by my noble friend Lord Williams; namely, the often somewhat anarchic relationship between the landlord, the managing agent and the people living in the block.
In the extensive discussions held during the course of the previous Bill, my noble friend Lord Williams pointed out that many cases arise where, because of the nature of the problems associated with management, many of the residents do not want to face up to those responsibilities. I believe that that will affect very many blocks of flats. Already the agendas for meetings of residents' associations are long. Consider the extra items to be added to them, along with the difficulty of persuading people to meet the new legal responsibilities. In those circumstances, it is important to ensure that some improvements are made to the quality and accountability of managing agents. I appreciate that I have made two separate points, but they can be addressed together in this contribution. We need to see a radical improvement made to the present law, where the standards of managing agents are not underpinned in any way.
570
Secondly, I think that the argument will be put later in our debates as regards who has the right of appointment and dismissal of a managing agent. At present, the landlord has the exclusive right to appoint a managing agent. Given that, no incentive is put on the managing agent to improve the quality of his services. Why is that? As soon as the managing agent provides a good quality service to the tenants or leaseholders, the landlord decides that the agent is spending too much money on the residents. He dismisses the agent in short order and appoints a different managing agent. That is totally unsatisfactory.
In many discussions held on the provisions of the Bill, people have expressed their surprise to me that, although the legislation goes into great detail, it does not address this typical, day-to-day worry. The problem has been raised before and many of us have been considering different approaches to address it. Perhaps at this stage we should try to disentangle to some degree the absolute symmetry established between RTM and RTE. Noble Lords know that, within the architecture of the Bill, every semi-colon covering the rules governing the establishment of RTMs is identical to that in the rules governing the establishment of RTEs. Take, for example, the famous 25 per cent threshold vis-à-vis a mixed block. Why should there be perfect symmetry between an RTM company and an RTE company?
I hope that the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench will be able to say that they will be inclined to look at the problems which have been outlined. Perhaps we need to establish a third route that will address the responsibility and accountability of managing agents. This should be done because for the overwhelming number of leasehold residents in this country that is the reality of their difficulties, whether or not the Bill is passed.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is right to pursue this matter. It is an extremely important point. Those who act on behalf of RTM companies as managing agents should be subject to the degree of control and regulation that has been proposed in his amendment.
Blocks of flats vary enormously. Certain upmarket blocks located in central London are full of people who know perfectly well how to run businesses and choose capable agents to act for them. However, many other residents are not capable of doing that and could easily be taken for a ride by a dishonest or incompetent managing agent.
I understand that, because this amendment has been proposed under Clause 72, it is intended to deal only with managing agents appointed on behalf of RTM companies, because if it were to have the wider application sought by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, then I believe that the amendment would have to apply to Chapter 5 of this part of the Bill. However, in principle, we strongly support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think we are all—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps we could hear a view from the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Kingsland: We entirely endorse the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and support everything that has been said in Committee in relation to it.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a worthwhile inquiry from my noble friend's point of view.
Of course we all agree that it is important to ensure that there is a good standard of management, and we all agree that the role of a managing agent should not be undertaken on a cowboy basis. I do not have any objection to any of the provisions of the amendment in regard to the code of practice, the yearly auditing of accounts, professional indemnity and fidelity insurance, or, indeed, to a minimum quota of annual management training, although that seems to be a little more vague.
We have two difficulties with the amendment. The first difficulty was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and that is that the amendment is tabled under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill. It relates to the leaseholders' right to manage and therefore is intended to apply only to the appointment of a manager by a right-to-manage company and not to the appointment of a manager in general. If anything is going to be done, surely it should be done for the whole of the business of management rather than only for RTM companies.
Of course there are strong arguments in favour of ensuring that people who are appointed managers of RTM property, like any other property, are of an appropriate standard and are properly equipped to assist the leaseholders in exercising their newly-acquired responsibilities. But there are counter arguments. Despite the support that my noble friend Lord Lea has given to the amendment today, I recall that, when the matter was discussed in Committee in the previous Parliament, he pointed out that it would make it more difficult for leaseholders to manage under RTM if they were only able to appoint managers who meet a specified threshold. This would limit the pool of talent available to them. That was a valid point when he made it then, and it would be a valid point if he were to make it now.
There is also the problem of ensuring fairness. The right to manage is being granted on the basis that leaseholders will have acquired the majority interest in the block and should therefore have a proportionate say in its management. In essence, we are giving homeowners the ability to manage their own homes. We cannot see why that right should be given on any different basis to that which would apply to any other group of homeowners—for example, a group of enfranchised leaseholders. We cannot see why more onerous requirements should be placed upon such
572
homeowners than would apply to someone who was the manager of someone else's home—for example, a non-resident landlord.
I appreciate that that is a negative point of view. It is based on the fact that the amendment has been tabled under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill and not applied more widely. It would not be legitimate for me to rely only on that defect in the amendment. Our objection is not to the idea that RTM companies should provide good standards of leasehold management—we wish them to do so and we have put on record our firm intention to issue guidance to help them to achieve that—but the question of statutory controls should be addressed as part of the wider work we are carrying out on leasehold management standards.
We are working on this. We are looking closely at the wide range of options which are open to us, including measures along the lines proposed in the amendment. We shall be issuing a consultation paper. If I am forced to, I shall no doubt be able to say how quickly we shall be pursuing a consultation paper. I can assure the Committee that anything which is done in the wider context—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded us, it is necessary to cover—will apply also to the provisions for RTM companies. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. He now recognises that the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Conservative Benches, a number of his supporters behind him and, I have no doubt, a large majority of the Cross Benches, were it to come to shove, would support the amendment. The Cross Benches are, of course, empty at the moment.
But let us wait for the report. I am perfectly happy to accept that my noble friend is about to produce some kind of document which will say something or other. I shall press him, as he invited me to, on the date.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to respond to that question. I do not know whether the noble Lord will find my response satisfactory. My understanding is that we intend to produce a consultation paper on the matter early next year, subject to Cabinet clearance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: "Early next year" is a long way away. We imagine that by that time the Bill will have left this House.
I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I warn my noble friend that, unless the Government can come up with a reasonable proposal, I shall invite those who supported my amendment to do so again. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be in action on the Conservative Benches, and the Government may find themselves in difficulty. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 [Qualifying tenants]:
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Long leases]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 35, line 5, leave out "21" and insert "7"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 to 104, which all raise the same point.
The problem arises because, in leasehold property, a number of people may have different leasehold interests, but only one of them can be entitled to be a member of the RTM company. Let us assume that the head leaseholder has a lease for 99 years, that he has created a sub-lease for a term of 21 years and that the sub-lessee has, in turn, granted a "sub-sub-lease" for a term of seven years. The question is: which of those three people is to be the member of the RTM company?
Under the Bill as it stands, the member of the RTM company will be the head lessee who holds the 99-year lease. That is because the only term which counts as a long lease is a term of more than 21 years; therefore, someone who holds a lease simply for 21 years and for no longer is not the holder of a long lease and cannot, therefore, be a member of the RTM company.
Our suggestion—which moves some way towards the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in terms of residence—is not that there should be a test of residence, but that the member of the RTM company should be someone who has a reasonably present and direct interest in the state of the premises. A leaseholder who has no right to possession for a period of, say, 20 or 21 years has no real current interest in the state of the premises and is not, therefore, appropriate to be the RTM member. That applies equally at the other end of the scale. It is inappropriate for someone who is interested only as a short-term lessee—someone who possibly has a rack-rent lease for a term of not more than seven years—to be a member of the RTM company. While he may be interested in certain aspects of the maintenance of the premises, he will not be interested in their longer-term stability.
We believe, therefore, that the Government have drawn the boundary line in the wrong place. For the purposes of the RTM company, the long lease definition ought to be reduced from 21 years to seven years. The person lowest down the tree with a lease of more than seven years should be the member of the RTM company. That achieves the right balance between somebody whose interest in the premises is remote rather than immediate and somebody whose interest is for such a limited time that they are not concerned about the maintenance of the premises over the longer term. The right boundary is not 21 years but seven. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will remember our reasons for not supporting the proposed change in Grand Committee but we do not differ much in our intention. I do not dissent from the noble Lord's description of a reasonably present and direct interest. We tend to
574
describe it as a substantial long-term stake by people who tend to think of themselves as owner-occupiers rather than renting tenants—and who aspire to something approaching the degree of control over and responsibility for their homes enjoyed by the freeholder of a house. Such people would not have chosen to buy leasehold if, under English property law, buying a freehold flat had been a practicable and sensible option.
There is no perfectly right answer. I do not imagine that the noble Lord would argue for the sanctity of seven years, any more than I would argue for the sanctity of 21 years. All leaseholders are technically tenants. It is impossible to draw a hard and fast line that neatly segregates would-be owner-occupiers from would-be renters.
It is well established and widely accepted that 21 years is a fair and accurate dividing line. It broadly reflects the point at which the value of the leaseholder's interest in the property is equal to that of the landlord. Where the leaseholder buys a lease granted for more than 21 years, he holds a greater stake in the building than the landlord. Where a lease of less than 21 years is bought, the landlord has a greater stake than the leaseholder.
I am sure that that dividing line—like any that could be devised—is open to criticism but it seems the right basis on which to strike the balance. We certainly think that seven years is too short for the purpose.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and we will consider his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Long leases: farther provisions]:
[Amendment 5 Nos. 102 to 104 not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Notice inviting participation]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 36, line 32, at end insert—
"() set out the principal responsibilities and obligations which the company will assume as the manager of the premises, by referring to the relevant provisions of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors service charge residential management code, or any other code relevant to the management of residential properties subject to a service charge which has been approved by the Secretary of State under the terms of section 87 of the Leasehold Reform. Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (c. 28)."
The noble Lord said: I shall speak first to Amendment No. 106, then to Amendments Nos. 105 and 107.
In Grand Committee, I unwisely suggested that the proposed amendment was unlikely to prove controversial. I was completely wrong. The principle is simple enough. Tenants in a block of flats should all have the right to participate in the RTM company. At present, the Bill proposes no sanction if the promoters

575
of an RTM company fail to send invitations to participate to all the tenants. That seems to us to be a technical defect in the Bill.
As noble Lords will know, there will, inevitably, be some tenants in a block of flats who are more enthusiastic for replacing the landlord than others. There is a danger that the enthusiasts will attempt to override the wishes of the less enthusiastic tenants. At present there is nothing whatever to stop the enthusiastic tenants from deliberately failing to send out the relevant notices to those whom they believe to be opponents of the proposal. We believe that that is a serious defect in the Bill.
The Government's response is to say, first, that a failure to send out notices to tenants who are entitled to participate would invalidate the notices that the RTM company must serve on the landlord in order to trigger the right to manage. However, that seems doubtful. If it were correct, it would mean that a failure properly to serve even one tenant in a block with hundreds of flats would invalidate the notice to the landlord. The Government's second response is that there is no prejudice to a tenant who has not been served because he or she can always join later. But leaving that aside, this argument still ignores the fact that all the tenants should be entitled to take part in the momentous decision as to whether or not to exercise the right to manage.
As far as concerns Amendments Nos. 105 and 107, I hope that there is agreement among noble Lords that the right to manage is an important right and one that puts potentially onerous burdens on tenants who choose to exercise it. Therefore, it is only right that tenants should know what they are letting themselves in for. The management code made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors sets out very clearly what managers of premises should do.
We on this side of the Committee take the view that the standard of management of blocks of flats can, and should, be improved. The right to manage will be a wholly illusionary right if the exercise of that right by tenants does not lead to the improvement in the quality of their property. At present, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to ensure that the right to manage does improve the management of blocks of flats.
The Government appear to have set their face against any form of regulation of managing agents in this Bill. However, it is difficult to see what objections there can be to a modest measure to ensure that tenants at the very least know what good management of a block of flats involves; for example, tenants should know what they need to do and what they are letting themselves in for. It would increase knowledge and, therefore, in a favourite word of the Government these days, it would "empower" tenants.
I ask the Government to accept that this is a modest but, nevertheless, creative measure designed to improve the management of blocks of flats. I commend the proposal to the Committee. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may deal with these amendments in the order suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I shall begin with Amendments Nos. 106 and 108. The noble Lord is suggesting that the directors and officers of an RTM company should be liable to prosecution for a failure properly to serve their invitations to participate. That seems to us to be somewhat draconian. Indeed, it appears to be in conflict with a further amendment of the noble Lord; namely, Amendment No. 122. Under Clause 80, that amendment suggests that,
"a failure to serve any qualifying tenant or tenants with a notice of invitation to participate".
should not invalidate the claim notice. I wonder whether the noble Lord is on the same side as regards Clause 80 as he appears to be on Clause 76. As I say, there seems to be some conflict here.
We do not see any advantage in prosecution. The interest of a leaseholder is not prejudiced by a failure to receive a notice of invitation to participate. The right to manage can only be acquired if a sufficient number of the leaseholders become members of the RTM company. Provided that enough of the others had signed up, anyone who does not become aware of the proposed acquisition would not be in a position to prevent it going ahead but will in any event have the right to become a member of the RTM company at any time. I believe that to be a failsafe position.
On Amendments Nos. 105 and 107, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with his usual generosity has given us two different versions of what he wants—one that he used before in the previous Parliament, and one that refers to a "prescribed statement" rather than setting out the principal responsibilities and obligations. I see that they mean the same thing. Amendment No. 116 requires the claim notice to state that the information was provided with the invitation.
We intend to consider what might be included on management responsibilities in the invitation to participate. However, the requirements suggested in the amendments do not strike the correct balance. They are wide ranging and vague. What is meant by "principal" in this context? How much of the code of practice is the RTM company supposed to repeat in the invitation? Without that being properly set out, there would be enormous scope for argument about whether the provision had been complied with.
In any case, it is wrong to make an explicit link between the responsibilities of the RTM company and the approved codes of practice. The responsibilities of the RTM company will derive from the Bill and from the terms of all relevant leases. The codes will supplement that by making clear the standard and degree of management that we would expect to see provided within that framework. They will not impose any new obligations in themselves. The proposed requirement to refer to the codes of practice is otiose. I am sorry; that is the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I should not be trespassing on it.
There is a difficult balance to be struck. We want the leaseholders to be aware of what they are taking on, but we do not want to overburden them with

577
requirements that have to be met before they can acquire the right. We certainly do not want to put in place subjective requirements which will open up scope for dispute.
We continue to believe that this is best dealt with in the flexible way provided for in the Bill. We have the power to prescribe the form and content of the invitation to participate using regulations. We propose to use that power to include something in the notice on that front. That would allow us both to ensure that the requirements are properly clear and unambiguous and that they could not be changed if it proved that the correct balance had not been struck.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not pursue the amendments.
Lord Kingsland: I agree that the remedy of prosecution in the context of Amendment No. 106 may be somewhat draconian and I shall reflect on that when drafting a similar amendment on Report. The principle of making sure that every tenant receives proper notice is important and should not be derided. When I re-emerge, rather bloodied, from this Committee stage and table an amendment with a softer sanction at Report stage, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will be prepared, in the even-handed way in which he approaches all opposition amendments, to look at the matter afresh.
I think that he said that some thought would be given in the detailed regulations to the principle that lay behind Amendments Nos. 105 and 107. It is important that tenants who are about to embark on establishing an RTM are aware of the responsibilities, obligations and dangers—as well as the benefits—that will necessarily flow from that. The Bill needs to provide a way to ensure that the information arrives on the doorstep of each tenant, together with the formal notices that are mentioned in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 108 not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]
Clause 77 [Right to obtain information]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 37, line 19, after "person" insert "who has a right to manage the premises, or any part thereof,"
The noble Lord said: It seems to the Opposition that, as presently drafted, Clause 77 is both too wide and too vague. As I understand it, the purpose of the clause is to ensure that RTM companies have the necessary knowledge to invoke the participation procedure. That is perfectly sensible. However, what an RTM company really needs to start the procedure for exercising the right to manage is the information which must be put in the claim notice. This is essentially the names of the qualifying tenants and the details of their leases.
The Bill, by requiring information,
"which the company reasonably requires in connection with the making of a claim to acquire the right to manage the premises",
invites disputes to arise. Just what is reasonably required? Is it just names and addresses or does it extend, for example, to details of the financial arrangements which the landlord has made with managing agents, with caretakers, with builders, with oddjob men and so forth? An RTM company might well be able to say that it reasonably required that information in order to make an attractive proposal to the qualifying tenants so that it could show in detail how the tenants would benefit from the RTM company taking over the management.
But it is anything but clear whether the clause covers such things. The general rule of drafting is that it is better to say as accurately as possible what one means. Equally, at present the clause allows an RTM company to demand information from absolutely anyone. This seems to be far too wide. The information it will want will be information held by the landlord. In my submission the duty to give information should be confined to him.
Lastly, the clause at present has no sensible enforcement mechanism. An RTM company would have to start an action in either the county court or the High Court seeking an injunction. Except in an obvious case an interlocutory injunction—I believe that it is now renamed an interim injunction—would probably not be granted because it would be the equivalent of granting final relief. So the action would probably have to go to trial at disproportionate expense.
A more narrowly drafted and clearer clause would allow enforcement to take place swiftly in the magistrates' court with a fine for infringement. This must, we think, be preferable to ordinary civil proceedings being necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments, which I understand are similar to ones tabled in Committee in the Bill's earlier incarnation, are intended to restrict the power for RTM companies to obtain information.
As I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained during the previous proceedings, the power granted in Clause 77 can only be used to obtain information relating to certain matters which are required to be included in the claim notice required by Clause 79. While the main purpose of Clause 77 is to ensure that an RTM company can obtain that information, the company may have a legitimate reason to obtain other information which is pertinent to its claim. That is why the clause provides the general power to obtain other information that the company reasonably requires.
As was said in Committee previously, the word "reasonably" should in most circumstances prevent landlords or other managers being faced with unnecessary or unjustified demands. We continue to believe that that strikes the right balance.

579
The noble Lord also proposes a criminal sanction for failure to comply. As was explained in Committee earlier in the year, Clause 105 provides a power to apply to a court for an order to provide information requested under the clause. We consider that to be sufficient and have heard nothing this evening to persuade us otherwise. We think that that would be a criminal sanction too far.
On the contents of the claim notice, perhaps I do the noble Lord a disservice, but I think that he may have failed to pick up that the RTM company may need information to put in the notice, not only under Section 79(3) and (4), but also under Section 79(8) and (9). We may also encourage them to provide information through guidance and there may well be a need to get information not just from the landlord but from any manager appointed under or outside the terms of the lease. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I may have tabled the amendments on a previous occasion, but I have furnished the Committee with a fresh speech today. However, the Government's reaction is exactly the same as it was last time. Although my speech has changed, it has clearly proved ineffectual. I accept what the Minister says about the criminal sanction, but apart from that, I suggest that what I have said is inoffensive and constructive and would improve the Bill. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote today. I shall reflect on what we should do on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Notice of claim to acquire right]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 37, line 42, leave out "14" and insert "28"
The noble Lord said: As the Bill is drafted, an RTM company has to serve a notice inviting participation on every qualifying tenant. The qualifying tenant then has 14 days to decide whether to participate. As the Government are already aware, we think that that period is too short.
In some cases, the question of forming an RTM company will have been in the air for a long time and lessees will have had extensive discussions among themselves about whether to proceed with such a scheme. However, in other cases the idea of an RTM company will have originated with a small group. That is particularly likely to be the case in large blocks. In such a case, the first that many lessees will hear of the proposal is when they receive the notice inviting participation.
A lessee who first learns of the proposal through the notice inviting participation should have a reasonable time to consider the notice. In particular, he or she may want to obtain advice from a solicitor, surveyor or other professional. The lessees may well also want to hold an open meeting for all tenants in the block to
580
discuss the pros and cons of going ahead with an RTM company. To do all that realistically will require more than 14 days. We suggest that 21 days is a. more reasonable period.
I now turn to the other amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 121. These amendments deal with one aspect of an important element of the RTM scheme—the handover provisions. It appears to us that the Government have not properly thought through what will occur in terms of the practical, day-to-day management of blocks.
Let us take a straightforward case. A landlord has instructed builders, who are doing repair work on the premises which will take approximately a couple of months. The RTM company serves a claim notice on the landlord to take effect in one month, right in the middle of the works being carried out by the builder. What is the effect of the service of the claim notice on the landlord's contract with the builders? The Bill makes detailed provisions in Clauses 89 and 90 for management contracts and, for that matter, management subcontracts, but says nothing about other contracts, such as a contract with a builder.
There are two possibilities: the RTM company takes over the contract with the builder or the landlord retains responsibility for the existing contract with the builder. The first possibility involves the builder having a different contracting partner being thrust on him. As RTM companies will have no share capital, builders may well be unwilling to allow the contract to be moved. Moreover, the RTM will come completely fresh to any project which is in progress. Admittedly, there are provisions in the Bill for information to be transferred between the landlord and the RTM company. But, as anyone who has ever had involvement in building work knows, it is almost impossible to take over the supervision of building work in mid-flow.
The second possibility involves the landlord remaining a contracting party to all existing contracts. That, I suggest, is contrary to the whole idea of right to manage. Theoretically it would he possible for a landlord to remain liable to the builder while the management function was transferred to the RTM company. In that connection, Clause 92 provides for the landlord to pay over "crude uncommitted service charges". Therefore, it may be considered that the landlord would be able to retain service charges to pay the contract that he had already entered into. However, realistically, that type of split responsibility is likely to prove a recipe for disaster. Who, for example, would be responsible for any cost over-runs?
When the Bill was previously in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated that he would seek what he described as "greater clarification" (Official Report, 1/3/2001; col. CWH 177) during debate on the question of transitional arrangements for the handover of contracts. The Bill in its current form does not appear to have taken matters any further than in the Bill as put before your Lordships' House before the general election.
As the Government do not appear to be willing to entertain detailed provisions as to how and when existing contracts should be transferred or otherwise dealt with, it seems to me that the only practical solution is to allow a reasonable time for existing contracts to be run off and for sensible handover arrangements to be made. In my view, the six-month period would, in the ordinary case, be suitable. One month is, with the greatest respect to the Government, simply absurd.
None the less, I accept that there may be cases in which a shorter period would be appropriate; for example, where urgent works need to be done and it is sensible that the RTM company rather than the landlord carries out the works. Therefore, the amendment that I have put forward gives the RTM company an option to ask for an earlier handover date, with the leasehold valuation tribunal to decide in cases of dispute.
I appreciate that leasehold valuation tribunals are currently overworked and that steps would have to be taken to ensure that tribunals decided the issue of a handover date quickly. None the less, steps are currently being taken to appoint further chairmen. In any event, it should not be difficult to devise a fast-track system for the determination of this issue. Accordingly, I commend to the Committee the amendment that I have tabled and beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not think me discourteous if I deal with the amendments quickly and simply. In essence, they have one common feature; that is, to introduce delay into the process of acquiring the right to manage. We see no justification for that. We insist that the timetable that is set out in the Bill has been carefully constructed and thought through. We believe that 14 days is a sufficient gap between invitation to participate and claim notice, and that one month is the correct minimum gap between establishing that the company will take over management and the acquisition date itself.
The amendments were tabled in Committee earlier this year. We have heard nothing this evening to persuade us that we have got the balance wrong. We think that all the amendments lean too far towards the convenience of the landlord. We believe that the balance is right and we therefore see no reason to change the arrangement.
The noble Lord properly raised the issue of contracts but it would be better to discuss the issue in relation to Amendment No. 128. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to wait until we reach the relevant group of amendments so that there can be a more substantive debate on and response to this issue.
I can tell that the noble Lord will be disappointed by our response. However, we feel that we have struck the right balance and that we are right to insist on our approach. I hope that he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am extremely disappointed by the noble Lord's response and vastly unimpressed by the logic that apparently lies behind it. It is not the Liberal Party's practice to vote in Committee; if it were I am sure that I should be backed to the hilt. I shall reflect on what the Government have said and return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Contents of claim notice]
[Amendments Nos. 116 to 121 not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Claim notice: supplementary]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 39, line 15, at end insert—
"() Nor shall a failure to serve any qualifying tenant or tenants with a notice of invitation to participate invalidate the claim notice, so long as a sufficient number of qualifying tenants were members of the company on the relevant date."
The noble Lord said: I am extremely weary of suggesting that this might prove to be an uncontroversial amendment. All the technical improvements that I have so far proposed have been met with the welcome that Scrooge gave to the Christmas carol singers. None the less, it seems to me that there is a technical lacuna in the clause.
Members of the Committee will have noticed that Clause 80(2) is an anti-technicality measure. In other words, the fact that a claim that purports to be given by some people who are not in fact qualifying tenants will not render the claim notice invalid so long as there is a sufficient number of qualifying tenants. So far so good. However, the clause still leaves the problem that some qualifying tenants may not have been served with notices inviting participation.
In a block of 100 flats or more, there is every chance that one or two tenants have not, by some accident or misadventure, been served with a notice inviting participation. So long as the number of qualifying tenants wanting to exercise the right to manage is sufficient, there seems no reason why that accident or misadventure should invalidate the notice. None the less, difficult though it is to believe, that is the Government's intention.
I raised this issue when we were previously in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated:
"Any failure to serve notices properly would in itself invalidate any attempt to exercise the right to manage and therefore they would have to start all over again".—[Official Report, 1/3/01; CWH 153.]
In other words, if one tenant out of 100 is not served, the whole exercise is vitiated.
That does not seem sensible. It would be better to have a modest criminal sanction and directors who do not serve all the qualifying tenants with notices inviting participation, thus leaving it to the discretion of the prosecuting authorities or aggrieved tenants to prosecute rather than have the entire "right to

583
manage" procedure rendered a nullity due to a minor and possibly excusable mistake in the service of the notices inviting participation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, should hold on to his seat: we think that this is an excellent amendment. At the moment, a claim notice might be invalid or at least be open to challenge if the RTM company has, for whatever reason, failed to serve notices of invitation to participate on all of the qualifying tenants. Having commented on the quality of the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind if I refer to the exact opposite thrust of his earlier amendments, which I had to refer forward in an earlier debate.
On reflection, the present position is not entirely sensible. It could open the door to frivolous challenges by unscrupulous landlords. Amendment No. 122 seems to strike a better balance. A failure to serve the invitation to participate on everybody would not invalidate the claim notice, provided that the right number of qualifying tenants had signed up as members of the RTM company.
No one's interests would be harmed by such an approach. The acquisition of the right to manage would still need majority support. Any person who had not been sent an invitation to participate would be in the minority and would be unable to prevent the
584
RTM from going forward. At the same time, such a person would still have the right to become a member of the RTM company at any time.
We support the amendment but think that it might have to go wider. It might be prudent, for example, to say that minor inaccuracies do not invalidate the notice, as we have provided in the claim notice in Clause 80(1). We should also like to check that consequential amendments will not be required. I hope that the noble Lord will allow us to take away this matter and consider an appropriate amendment to be brought forward at a later stage.
Lord Kingsland: My enthusiasm for the amendment is now somewhat tempered by the fact that the Government have accepted it. I wonder whether I was right after all. In any case, I think I am correct in withdrawing the amendment. I shall be interested and, indeed, intrigued, to see what the Government make of it on Report. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Police Complaints Authority
  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Opposition Parties: Costing of Polices
  Opposition Parties: Costing of Polices
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Sale of Diesel and Petrol
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Sale of Diesel and Petrol
  Foot and Mouth: Assistance to the Countryside
  Foot and Mouth: Assistance to the Countryside
  Snaefell Mountain: Suspected Light Aircraft Crash
  Snaefell Mountain: Suspected Light Aircraft Crash
  Northern Ireland: UFO Crash Report
  Northern Ireland: UFO Crash Report
  Sonic Boom Report, North East of England
  Sonic Boom Report, North East of England
  Rendlesham Forest Incident
  Rendlesham Forest Incident
  Bow Street Police Station Site
  Bow Street Police Station Site
  Arson Control Forum
  Arson Control Forum
  Fire Safety
  Fire Safety
  Millennium Dome Site
  Millennium Dome Site
  Underground Rail Transport: Fare Comparisons
  Underground Rail Transport: Fare Comparisons
  Concessionary Bus Fares for Young People
  Concessionary Bus Fares for Young People
  Planning System Reform
  Planning System Reform
  Aviation Security
  Aviation Security
  Salisbury/Yeovil Railway Line
  Salisbury/Yeovil Railway Line
  Local Authorities: Promotion of Well-being
  Local Authorities: Promotion of Well-being
  Road Deaths
  Road Deaths
  Night Flying
  Night Flying
  Strategic Rail Authority Contracts
  Strategic Rail Authority Contracts
  London Underground Signalling
  London Underground Signalling
  English Partnerships
  English Partnerships
  English Heritage
  English Heritage
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission